BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Patrick Finucane Review

Resolved ,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 12 December 2012, of the Patrick Finucane Review.—(Mark Lancaster.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

India

David Rutley: What recent assessment she has made of her Department’s relationship with the Indian Government.

Mark Spencer: What recent assessment she has made of her Department’s relationship with the Indian Government.

Justine Greening: I held constructive meetings with senior politicians and officials in India last month. We agreed the move to a new relationship based on technical assistance rather than financial aid grants. I announced this in my written ministerial statement of 9 November.

David Rutley: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Indian Foreign Minister, Salman Khurshid, who has spoken of the need to move from an era of aid to an era of trade?

Justine Greening: That is precisely the transition that I believe we are walking towards with India. Our trade with India has grown in recent years, with exports to India growing by more than 20% in 2010. Our development relationship needs to match the changing and successful India we see today, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Mark Spencer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as India becomes wealthier, her Department should look to redevelop the relationship with that country and move funds to other parts of the world where they might be of more benefit?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, our development relationship with India needs to match the India of today and the future rather than the India of yesterday, which means we can reprioritise our portfolio of development spend on countries where we believe we can still make a difference. Without that assistance from the UK, we would not be able to see change on the ground.

Nick Smith: Can the Secretary of State reveal how much financial aid will be provided to India through the UK’s technical assistance?

Justine Greening: We currently have an aid programme of around £270 million a year. After we complete our transition to technical assistance, we expect to spend approximately just under £30 million from 2015 onwards, to help the Indian Government to get the most out of the £50 billion a year they spend on things such as health and education.

Malcolm Bruce: I appreciate that the Secretary of State has negotiated the changed arrangement with the Indian Government and the state governments, but does she not acknowledge that India still has more poor people than sub-Saharan Africa? Is she prepared to consider not only technical assistance, but perhaps changing the relationship to soft loans, so that India can accelerate poverty reduction using the substantial pro-poor measures it is already adopting?

Justine Greening: The right hon. Gentleman is right that our relationship with India will go beyond technical assistance. It will include us helping with investments in small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in rural and poorer areas of India, so that we not only help them to get the most out of India’s development spend, but drive economic development too.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Helen Jones: What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian consequences of violence in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Justine Greening: I am extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in eastern DRC. Some 130,000 people in and around Goma have been displaced by the recent violence. Elsewhere in DRC, armed group activity continues to displace large numbers of people, and attacks on civilians are common. There are now 2.4 million displaced people in DRC, up from 1.7 million at the end of 2011. The hon. Lady might be aware that last month I announced an additional £18 million to address humanitarian needs in DRC.

Helen Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that when NGOs had to evacuate their personnel from eastern DRC, priests remained. Churches were often the only source of support for the victims of violence. Will she undertake to work with those churches in the distribution of aid to ensure that it gets to those who are most in need?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady raises an important point. I have had the opportunity to meet many of the organisations working on the ground, particularly in eastern DRC, to protect and help civilians. They have a range of needs, from security and medical assistance to food and shelter. She is right to flag up the fact that, in many cases, when people are at risk of violence, the place they go is their local church. We are working on the ground wherever we can to ensure that we do our bit to improve the situation.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that the head of M23, Bosco Ntaganda, is a vile, evil, wicked man who is perpetrating so much misery in the region? What more can be done to apprehend this ghastly individual?

Justine Greening: It is important that we take all the steps we can to apprehend all those people who have been involved in atrocities in that region. There is no doubt that achieving stability in the DRC needs a political solution, but such a solution has to mean that people who have committed offences do not have impunity.

Tom Blenkinsop: Recent reports from the BBC have shown that the increase in violence in the eastern DRC is sparking fears of the resurgence of civil war. What actions is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that a peace process is formulated? What conversations has she had with the Home Secretary about returnees from Britain to the DRC while this conflict goes on?

Justine Greening: As a Government, we have a number of discussions with leaders in that region. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to the Presidents of the DRC, Uganda and, indeed, Rwanda. I spoke to Baroness Valerie Amos only on Monday about how we can work together to tackle the humanitarian situation. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, over time, we need to see some real progress on the ground.

Martin Horwood: There are worrying reports from NGOs operating in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo that the M23 is talking about imposing taxes on NGOs working in the area, effectively diverting humanitarian resources from the affected populations to the M23. What can the Government do alongside international partners to try to protect the humanitarian space?

Justine Greening: If the situation the hon. Gentleman described were to arise, it would obviously be totally unacceptable. We are providing humanitarian assistance in order to get to the people on the ground who need our help. We are working not just with the UN, but with a range of NGOs, as I said, to make a difference on the ground. The issue needs to be tackled not just by us working on the ground with humanitarian support, but politically. I can assure him that my colleagues in the Foreign Office raise all those sorts of issues with leaders in the region on a very regular basis.

Development Spending Target

Ian Murray: How her Department plans to reach the Government’s target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on development aid by 2015.

Chris Ruane: How her Department plans to reach the Government’s target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on development aid by 2015.

Alan Duncan: The Government are committed to spending 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance from 2013 and thereafter. The Department’s budget after the 2012 autumn statement adjustment is sufficient to meet this commitment, along with planned official development assistance from other Government Departments.

Ian Murray: The coalition agreement states that the Government will enshrine in legislation the 0.7% commitment. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will work towards that commitment or is it just another broken promise?

Alan Duncan: The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that the Government will introduce legislation to make this a legal requirement as soon as parliamentary time allows. As evidence of good faith, the hon. Gentleman should notice that we are behaving as if the legislation were already in place, and we will meet the 0.7% commitment.

Chris Ruane: What is the Minister’s assessment of the implications of the decrease in absolute spending on development announced in the autumn statement?

Alan Duncan: The effect is to reduce the immediate planned budget by £804 million—a reduction of about £2 billion since the original spending review period. We will, of course, make adjustments to make sure that our spending within those reduced figures retains the value for money that we see as such a high priority.

Julian Lewis: In his first answer, the Minister made reference to the contributions of other Departments. For the sake of clarity and for the benefit of those of us who think 0.7% is on the high side, will he confirm that the Foreign Office will make a significant contribution, given that so much of its work can be said to contribute to development?

Alan Duncan: In 2011, £958 million of the total of just over £8.5 billion came from other Government Departments and other areas outside DFID, such as debt relief and gift aid. DFID’s contribution to UK official development assistance is set to stay at approximately 90% in 2013 and 2014.

Gary Streeter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Government’s commitment to move towards 0.7%, and express the view that, providing we are doing it, we do not really need to enshrine it in legislation. He will know that many of our constituents are not yet persuaded that
	every single pound we spend is value for money. What more can he do to reassure our constituents that this excellent British aid does not end up in Swiss bank accounts, but meets the needs of people in real poverty?

Alan Duncan: I assure my hon. Friend—and the whole House—that every day we as Ministers, and all who work in DFID, do our utmost to secure value for money. Although my hon. Friend thinks that it may not be necessary because we are already moving towards the 0.7% target, legislation serves as an example to the rest of the world and, I hope, as a weapon for us to use in order to persuade other countries to follow suit.

Gregory Campbell: There is continuing concern throughout the United Kingdom about the level of waste as we make progress towards our 0.7% target. Can the Minister assure us that every possible objective will be met in efforts to minimise waste, and to ensure that the target, if it is met, benefits those who are most in need?

Alan Duncan: Absolutely. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, because it illustrates the determination with which we seek value for money and take every possible opportunity to eliminate waste so that we can focus our taxpayers’ resources on the poorest people in the world, who are in such genuine need.

Sustainable Development Goals

Simon Wright: What progress her Department has made on developing sustainable development goals.

Lynne Featherstone: We are working internationally to secure a single set of development goals for the period after 2015. We want to build on the millennium development goals, finishing the job by eliminating poverty but also incorporating the sustainable development priorities that were agreed at Rio+20 in June.

Simon Wright: Will the Department support the Prime Minister in his role as co-chair of the high-level panel on the post-2015 development framework in order to guarantee integration and coherence between this process and the sustainable development goals, with the aim of putting environmental sustainability at the heart of the framework?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend raises a critical issue, that of ensuring that coherence and integration exist between the sustainable development goals and the post-2015 millennium development goals. I assure him that my Department is doing just that. Across Government, we have a single structure and approach to managing our engagement with both the high-level panel and the SDGs. The Prime Minister’s envoy is a senior DFID official, and is responsible for both those things.

George Howarth: Will the Minister tell us what part conflict analysis and sensitivity play in the approach to the sustainable development goals?

Lynne Featherstone: Conflict plays a big part, and the sustainable development goals are incredibly important to ensuring that we reduce poverty. Poverty is at its highest where conflict is at its greatest.

Graham Stuart: The GLOBE climate legislation initiative will be launched in the Foreign Office on 14 and 15 January, and will bring together legislators from 33 countries to discuss national action on climate change. Does the Minister agree that further national action is necessary, and that we should follow the example of countries such as Mexico, which has passed legislation, and China, which plans to do so, in order to establish the conditions that will allow international agreement in 2015?

Lynne Featherstone: We already have legislation in the form of the Climate Change Act 2008, but it is crucial for all of us, in all countries, to work together in moving towards sustainable development goals. As I said earlier, climate change is absolutely critical to the reduction of poverty, and all countries need to ensure that they are working on that.

Rushanara Ali: In Copenhagen the developed world agreed to establish a $100 billion fund to help developing countries to cope with the effects of climate change, but, despite further calls for urgent action at the Doha summit, only a fraction of that funding has been delivered. What progress does the Minister think the United Kingdom Government have made in showing international leadership on this important issue?

Lynne Featherstone: That is obviously one of our priorities, and we have taken a lead. I think that DFID is a world leader in terms of its development agenda. Doha was not a complete failure, although the outcome was disappointing; some small steps forward were made. Climate change is critical, and it is a priority for the Government.

Global Fund

Gareth Thomas: What her Department’s strategy is on tackling HIV and supporting the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Lynne Featherstone: The Government’s policy is set out in our position paper called “Towards zero infections”. We will continue to support the fund as it implements key reforms. It is critical to achieving the millennium development goals, we have invested heavily in it, and we want it to succeed.

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the Government’s support for the election of the excellent Mark Dybul as new executive director of the global fund. Given that next year will be a replenishment year for the global fund, will the Minister use her G8 discussions to leverage additional funding from other countries and announce further UK funding for the fund?

Lynne Featherstone: I certainly hope that will be the case. One of our roles is, indeed, to leverage more funds across the board into the global fund. As the hon.
	Gentleman says, a replenishment year is coming up, and we will do all we can to make sure funds are replenished from everyone.

George Freeman: Does the Minister agree that Britain’s agricultural science and our leadership in plant and animal genetics offers huge opportunities for us to help the developing world to deal with its emerging food nutrition challenges? I welcome the Government’s launch last month of an agricultural science strategy.

Lynne Featherstone: I agree that advancement in science will help to take this agenda forward. That is crucial in developing agriculture.

Departmental Value for Money

Karl McCartney: What steps she is taking to ensure value for money in her Department.

Justine Greening: I am determined to ensure that every pound we spend has the maximum impact in reducing poverty, and we are looking at the following: where we spend our money, including in which countries; what we spend our money on, focusing on what works and working collaboratively with other partners; and how we spend that money better, for example by getting better value from suppliers and from multilateral aid organisations.

Karl McCartney: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Is she aware of a recent report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which suggests that the EU aid budget—to which her Department, and the UK taxpayer, contribute £1.4 billion a year—lacks an effective oversight regime, and will she therefore consider removing the discretionary element of our contribution to it if the Government cannot secure strong assurances that the money is being spent effectively on the ground?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I am already pressing the EU on that issue. In fact, one of my first trips in my role as Secretary of State for International Development was to meet EU commissioners, and I have been back to Brussels since to continue those discussions. I hope we can make progress on this matter, but, as my hon. Friend points out, if we do not, I have choices about where our multilateral aid goes.

Ivan Lewis: The Secretary of State has made great play of the fact that her accountancy background will help her deliver better value for money and greater transparency than her predecessor, so why will she not publish the findings of her Department’s review into the vast amounts of DFID money being paid to private consultants? How many consultants are there? How much are they being paid? Do they have to compete in fair and open tendering processes? What assessment is made of the results they deliver? Publish the findings, Secretary of State.

Mr Speaker: There were four questions there, which was rather unkind of the hon. Gentleman, but it certainly will not be beyond the wit and sagacity of the right hon. Lady pithily to reply.

Justine Greening: We are getting on with improving how we work with suppliers. I met our top suppliers only a couple of weeks ago at DFID, and they told me it was the first time they had been invited in en masse to talk to the Secretary of State about how we can work more strategically with them to get better value for taxpayers’ money. I therefore suspect that I do not need to take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about getting better value for money.

Gambia

Julian Huppert: What steps she is taking to provide aid for economic development in the Gambia.

Lynne Featherstone: Although DFID does not have a bilateral aid programme in the Gambia, the UK continues to support the Gambia through our share of contributions to multilateral organisations. The European Development Fund disbursed €27.69 million in 2011, of which €25.36 million was spent in the sector of “economic infrastructure and services”.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for that answer. The shape of the Gambia is a colonial relic based on how far a boat could travel up the river and how far shots could be fired from each side. There is very little significant river traffic at present. Will the Minister look at investing and providing a boat that will enable the up-country areas to develop at the same rate as the coastal areas?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He rightly says that the Gambia’s shape is such that the river is the main road, if I may put it like that. The UK has supported the Gambia groundnut river transport fleet through the EU funding. Between 2008 and 2010, £1.1 million was spent on rehabilitating three tugboats to enable the river fleet to operate effectively and efficiently. Since 2010, EU funding has been going towards a road infrastructure to assist the boat.

Mr Speaker: Order. Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. I happen to know that Members of Parliament from other countries are observing our proceedings, and we ought to set a good example. Let us have a bit of order for Mr James Gray.

Topical Questions

James Gray: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: In the course of carrying out my departmental responsibilities, I have announced to the House that I have moved to a new relationship with India; announced decisions on Uganda and Rwanda; announced humanitarian assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; travelled to India; been to Brussels to meet the EU Commissioners; and co-chaired a global partnership meeting in the UK. Of course, a
	couple of weekends ago I had my first chance to visit Afghanistan to see the work my Department is doing out there.

James Gray: Those of us who strongly support Britain’s moral and strategic duty to get money through to the poorest and most needy people in the world are none the less concerned that on occasion that money can be diverted to improper purposes in one way or another. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of getting the money through to the most needy people in the world is by making use of non-governmental organisations, thereby avoiding passing the money to corrupt dictators?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that many of our NGOs do excellent work, often in very challenging circumstances. He will be pleased to know that we now provide budget support only in countries where we are completely satisfied that the funding will be used for its intended purposes—when it is not, we stop, as has been seen. Just 6% of the Department’s bilateral aid budget is provided in the form of general budget support.

Ivan Lewis: I wish to declare an interest: I have just returned from a visit to Burma with the Burma Campaign UK, where I had the privilege of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi, whose courageous leadership is a source of inspiration and hope for a better future, and I saw for myself the challenges that ethnic communities continue to face. Will DFID Ministers work with the Foreign Secretary to apply maximum pressure to the Burmese Government to protect the Rohingya community from violence, create an urgent and transparent process to establish their citizenship rights, and begin a serious political dialogue with all ethnic communities? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just remind the House that we are discussing extremely serious matters? This question is about Burma, and it would be a courtesy if Members would listen to the question and to the Minister’s answer.

Alan Duncan: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who has responsibility for Burma, will visit Rakhine state this coming Friday and Saturday, when he will see the situation at first hand and meet senior Burmese Ministers. The Burmese Government have founded an independent commission to investigate the situation in Rakhine state. The UK is very closely engaged with all parties to push for greater humanitarian access and a longer-term political settlement, including on citizenship.

Karen Lumley: This year marks the 20th anniversary of the formation of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, under a Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that the work it does is extremely valuable in building democracies and is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Justine Greening: I do. The work that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy does is extremely valuable in helping to promote democratic governance around
	the world. I know that the WFD is also working to strengthen further the value for money it provides to the taxpayer, and to change and modernise, and I fully support that work.

Naomi Long: Will the Minister outline what discussions her Department has had with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on ensuring that small businesses, including fair trade businesses from developing countries, are able to be supported?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue. I am determined to ensure that we provide fair aid, but I think that fair trade is incredibly important, too. We are discussing with BIS how we can work more effectively with that Department in developing our trade links, and I think that fair trade is an excellent way in which we can see the shift from aid to trade take place.

Anne-Marie Morris: Given the austerity measures being implemented domestically, what assurances can the Secretary of State give me that international aid is provided only to those countries and projects where genuine need has been clearly established, as opposed to countries that can and should be doing more to help themselves?

Justine Greening: I think my hon. Friend will have seen from some of the decisions I have taken in the short time for which I have been in this role that I am determined to ensure that our spend on behalf of the taxpayer goes where it can make the biggest difference. Whether we are dealing with countries that are better placed to help themselves, such as India, or countries where we are concerned about how our aid money is being spent by the Government, such as Uganda, we are prepared to take decisions and we will see improved value for money over time.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Christopher Pincher: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 December.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Christopher Pincher: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the fall in youth unemployment figures is the largest since records began and will he meet me to discuss how employment opportunities in Tamworth, including in youth employment, can be promoted still further?

David Cameron: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the economic and business situations in Tamworth. He is absolutely right that this morning’s figures show the largest quarterly fall in youth employment on record, with 72,000 fewer people unemployed this
	quarter. Obviously, there is no room for complacency—far too many people are still long-term unemployed—but we can see from the figures that 40,000 more people are in work, vacancies are up, unemployment is down by 82,000, the claimant count is down and there are more than 1 million extra private sector jobs under this Government.

Edward Miliband: Today’s fall in unemployment and rise in employment are welcome. Part of the challenge remains the stubbornly high level of long-term unemployment. Does the Prime Minister agree that that remains of fundamental importance not just to the people who are out of work but to the country as a whole?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree—I mentioned it in my first answer—that long-term unemployment remains stubbornly high. The good news about today’s figures is that long-term youth unemployment is down by 10,000 this quarter, which is encouraging. Obviously, long-term unemployment among others is still a problem. That is why the Work programme and getting it right are so important. It has got 200,000 people into work, but clearly there is more to do. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s tone, not least because he said on 18 January that
	“over the next year, unemployment will get worse, not better, under his policies.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 739.]
	Perhaps he would like to withdraw that.

Edward Miliband: I am glad that the Prime Minister recognises that long-term unemployment is still a challenge. I want to ask him about the people who are doing the right thing and finding work. Last week in his autumn statement, the Chancellor decided to cut tax credits and benefits. He said it was the shirkers—the people with the curtains drawn—who would be affected. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many of those hit are in work?

David Cameron: The fact is this—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] I will answer it. Welfare needs to be controlled and everyone who is on tax credits will be affected by these changes. We have to get on top of the welfare bill. That is why we are restricting the increase on out-of-work benefits and it is also why we are restricting in-work benefits. What we have also done is increase the personal allowance, because on this side of the House we believe in cutting people’s taxes when they are in work.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister is raising the taxes of people in work. Of course, he did not answer the question. Despite the impression given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the answer is that more than 60% of those affected are in work. That means the factory worker on the night shift, the carer who looks after elderly people around the clock and the cleaner who cleans the Chancellor’s office while his curtains are still drawn and he is still in bed. The Chancellor calls them scroungers. What does the Prime Minister call them?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman just said that we are not cutting taxes for people in work. Someone on the minimum wage who works full time will see their income tax bill cut by one half under this
	Government. The fact is, under this Government, we are saying to working people, “You can earn another £3,000 before you even start paying income tax.” That is why we have taken 2 million people out of tax altogether. He should welcome that, because this is the party for people who work; his is the party for unlimited welfare.

Edward Miliband: Of course, as we might expect, the Prime Minister is just wrong on the detail. The Institute for Fiscal Studies table says quite clearly that, on average, working families are £534 a year worse off as a result of his measures. I notice that he wants to get away from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week. We know what the Chancellor was trying to do: he was trying to play divide and rule. He said that his changes were all about people
	“living a life on benefits”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 544, c. 877.]
	“still asleep” while their neighbours go out to work. It turned out that it was just not true. It is a tax on strivers. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the Chancellor got it wrong and that the majority of people hit are working people?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman says that we have not got the detail right. We know his approach to detail. It is to take a 2,000-page report and accept it without reading it. That is his approach to detail. Specifically on the Institute for Fiscal—[ Interruption. ] I am surprised that the shadow Chancellor is shouting again this week, because we learned last week that like bullies all over the world, he can dish it out but he cannot take it. He never learns. The figures—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer. [ Interruption. ] Order. Let us hear it.

David Cameron: To specifically answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition, he mentioned the figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but they do not include the personal allowance increase put through in the Budget, and they do not include the universal credit changes that come in next year and which will help the working poor more than anything. The fact he cannot get away with is that under this Government, we are lifting the personal allowance, we are taking millions out of tax, and we are standing up for those who work. He only stands up for those who claim.

Edward Miliband: I must say, I have heard everything when the boy from the Bullingdon club lectures people on bullying. Absolutely extraordinary. Have you wrecked a restaurant recently?
	The Prime Minister does not want to talk about the facts, but let us give him another one. He is hitting working families, and the richest people in our society will get a massive tax cut next April—an average of £107,000 each for people earning over £1 million. Is he the only person left in the country who cannot see the fundamental injustice of giving huge tax cuts to the richest while punishing those in work on the lowest pay?

David Cameron: The tax take for the richest under this Government will be higher in every year than it was for any year when the right hon. Gentleman was in government. He has obviously got a short memory, because I explained to him last week that under his
	plans for the 50p tax rate, millionaires paid £7 billion less in tax than they did previously. The point of raising taxes is to pay for public services. We are raising more money for the rich, but where he is really so profoundly wrong is in the choice that he has decided to make. The facts are these: over the last five years, people in work have seen their incomes go up by 10%, and people out of work have seen their incomes go up by 20%. At a time when people accept a pay freeze we should not be massively increasing benefits massively, yet that is what he wants to do. A party that is not serious about controlling welfare is not serious about controlling the deficit either.

Edward Miliband: From the first part of his answer, it seems the Prime Minister is claiming to be Robin Hood; I really do not think that is going to work. He is not taking from the richest and giving to everybody else. Didn’t the Business Secretary give it away in what he said about the autumn statement? He said:
	“what happened was some of their donors,”—
	we know who he is talking about—
	“very wealthy people, stamped their feet”,
	so the Conservatives scrapped the mansion tax and went ahead with the 50p tax cut. They look after their friends—the people on their Christmas card list. Meanwhile, they hit people they never meet, and whose lives they will never understand.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman’s donors put him where he is, pay him every year, and determine his policies. It is perfectly clear what the Labour party’s choice is: its choice is more benefits, paid for by more borrowing. It should listen to the former Labour Trade Minister, who said:
	“you know what you call a system of government where what you do is say ‘Oh, we’re in trouble, we’ll go and borrow loads and give it to people’? It’s called Greece”.
	That is what the Labour Trade Minister said. Labour is not serious about welfare; it is not serious about the deficit; it is not a serious party, and everyone can see it.

Charlotte Leslie: Will the Prime Minister join me and, I am sure, the whole House in sending our deepest sympathies and condolences to the family of nurse Jacintha Saldanha, who died this week; in urging anyone who wants to support the family to donate to the King Edward VII’s hospital’s memorial fund; and in urging the press to continue their largely good record of preserving the privacy of the family at a time of most terrible grief?

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House, and indeed the whole country, will join my hon. Friend and me in paying tribute to this nurse, and in giving all our sympathies and condolences to her family. She clearly loved her job and her work, and cared deeply about the health of her patients, and what has happened is a complete tragedy. There will be many lessons that need to be learned, and I absolutely echo what my hon. Friend says about the press keeping their distance and allowing this family the time and space to grieve.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister still intend to introduce the snooper’s charter, euphemistically known as the
	communications data Bill? Does he realise that he and his Government will be spying on more people in Britain than all the press barons put together? Where did he get his advice and this idea from? Was it down at Wapping? Was it his friends down there—Rupert, Tony, and Rebekah?

David Cameron: I really believe that on this issue, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. This is a very important issue—I feel this very strongly, as Prime Minister—in which you have to take responsibility, first and foremost, for security, including national security, and people’s safety. The fact is that communications data—not the content of a telephone call, but the fact that a phone call took place—are used in every single terrorist case, and in almost every single serious crime case. The question in front of the House of Commons, and indeed the House of Lords, is simply this: because we currently have those data for fixed and mobile telephony, what are we going to do as telephony increasingly moves over the internet? We can stand here and do nothing, and not update the law; the consequence of doing that would be fewer crimes solved, and fewer terrorists brought to justice. I do not want to be the Prime Minister who puts the country into that position.

John Hemming: The Government’s proposals on judicial review conflict with article XXIX of Magna Carta 1297. Do the Government propose the repeal of Magna Carta?

David Cameron: No, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we do not intend that. I am sure that he would understand—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to learn about 1297 from the Prime Minister. I am sure that I am about to.

David Cameron: The point that we are making is that the extent of judicial review has massively increased in recent years, and we think that there is a need for some new rules to look at the extent, and indeed the costs, of judicial review, so that the costs are properly covered. In that way, we can maintain access to justice, but perhaps speed up the wheels of government a little.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Prime Minister answer the question he was asked three times by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and dodged a few moments ago? Will he confirm that the majority of households that will be hit by the real-terms cut to benefits and tax credits are working households?

David Cameron: The point that I made is even bigger than that. Everyone on working tax credits will be affected by the fact that we are increasing them by only 1%, but we have to control welfare to deal with the massive deficit that we were left by the Opposition. There is a choice in politics. One can either control welfare bills or say no to a welfare cap, no to a housing benefit cap, no to the control of welfare—borrow, spend and build up our deficit, putting us straight back where we came from.

Andrew Tyrie: At the Liaison Committee yesterday the Prime Minister began by saying that the Government would accept crucial Lords amendments to make the Justice and Security Bill acceptable
	on secret courts, but he ended the session by appearing to say that he would not accept those amendments. Could he clarify which one it is?

David Cameron: What I said very clearly to the Committee yesterday is that we want the Bill to pass through Parliament, having listened to the Joint Committee and to all the excellent points made in the House of Lords. I am sure we will be listening even more carefully in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I think the Leader of the Opposition is catching off the shadow Chancellor the disease of not being able to keep his mouth shut for longer than five seconds. We will listen carefully to the amendments. The fundamental choice is to make sure that those proceedings are available to judges, and it is judges who should make the decision.

John Robertson: The Environment Secretary this week described wind turbines as
	“inappropriate technology which matured in the Middle Ages.”
	Does the Prime Minister agree? If not, why not?

David Cameron: We are making serious investments in renewable energy. We have set out a regime of subsidy that stretches right out to 2017 and beyond. That is why the renewable energy capacity of this country has doubled over the past two years under this Government.

Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government have had to deal with not only the catastrophic budget deficit that we inherited from the former Prime Minister but, as the figures reveal today, a tidal wave of immigration deliberately fostered by the Labour Government, and that concentrating on putting those two issues right is the most important task facing this Government for the delivery of security to the people of this country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that immigration was out of control under the previous Government. Net migration ran at more than 200,000 a year—that is 2 million across a decade. Under the sensible controls that we have put in place, net immigration has fallen by a quarter in recent years. What is interesting about this is that we can have proper control of immigration while also saying to the world, “Our universities are open to foreign students to come and study here, and as long as they have an English language qualification and a degree place at university, there is no limit on the numbers that can come.” That is our policy—controlling immigration, but making sure that the best and the brightest come to Britain.

Angus MacNeil: Iceland, which had huge economic difficulties, rejected austerity and has seen, according to Bloomberg, a recovery driven by domestic demand. Unemployment is 2.4% lower than the UK, growth is 2.5% and properties have risen at 110% of value. Those with children and the unemployed have received the most support in Iceland. Will the Prime Minister be gracious enough, notwithstanding other issues, to congratulate Iceland on working hard to turn things around? Does he think there is anything he can learn from Iceland?

David Cameron: If the case for an independent Scotland is “Make us more like Iceland”, I am not sure that will totally commend itself to the voters. Britain and Iceland have very good relations, and I will make sure that remains the case.

Amber Rudd: I, too, welcome the fall in youth unemployment, particularly in Hastings and Rye, where youth unemployment has fallen steadily for the past nine months and is at its lowest since May 2010. May I urge the Prime Minister to continue this Government’s investment in apprenticeships and Youth Contracts so that that can continue?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point. We will continue not only with the apprenticeships, which have reached over 1 million under this Government, but with the Youth Contract, and particularly work experience, because what we are seeing is that a large number of people who do work experience find a job and come off benefits and find that it is a very good start to a working career. That is what we want to see.

Michael Weir: On the day that unemployment in Scotland showed the largest fall in four years, is the Prime Minister as shocked as I am by reports in the Sunday Mail and the Daily Record this week that some jobcentre managers are actively encouraging employers to convert paid vacancies into unpaid work experience placements in order to satisfy Department for Work and Pensions targets? Will he condemn that practice and ensure that it ceases immediately?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that we want work experience places to be additional places, encouraging more young people to get at least a feel for work so that they have a chance of getting a job. It is good that he welcomes the fact that employment in Scotland is up 27,000 since the election and that unemployment has fallen by 19,000 this quarter, so we are making progress.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the progress that has been made across the country in supporting adults with autism since the Autism Act 2009? Following the recent National Audit Office report, will he join me in encouraging his ministerial colleagues and local authorities across the country to accelerate that progress next year, when the adult autism strategy is due to be reviewed?

David Cameron: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was instrumental in getting the landmark Autism Act 2009 on to the statute book. The impact of the Act, I believe, continues right up to this day and beyond. We want all adults living with autism to be able to live fulfilling and rewarding lives within a society that properly accepts them. She is absolutely right that the review of the strategy is coming up next year, between March and October. It is vital that it is a proper cross-Government effort, and after her remarks I will make sure that it is dealt with in a proper and co-ordinated way.

Chris Williamson: The green investment bank is due to be given new borrowing powers in three years’ time. In view of the Chancellor’s abject failure to meet his borrowing
	target, because it was predicated on meeting the borrowing targets set by the Government, is the Prime Minister still committed to giving the bank borrowing powers and, if so, when?

David Cameron: First, let me make the point that this Government have set up a green investment bank within two years, whereas the Labour party did nothing about that for 13 years. Secondly, even at a time of fiscal difficulty because of the mess we were left, we put £3 billion into the green investment bank, so right now it does not need to borrow because it has the money to invest. I think that what is needed in green investment is that equity risk finance, and that is exactly what the green investment bank can provide.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend goes to the summit tomorrow. Has he noticed in President Barroso’s blueprint for federalisation of Europe the following sentence: “The European Parliament, and only it, is the parliament for the EU, ensuring democratic legitimacy for the EU”? Does he agree with that or repudiate it, and what will he say to the other leaders at the summit tomorrow?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend on that one, not President Barroso, for this reason: it is the national parliaments that provide the real democratic legitimacy within the European Union. When we are discussing banking union, it is to this House that we should account. When we are discussing the European budget, it is to this House, which represents our taxpayers, that we should account. I always bear that in mind when I am negotiating, as I will be tomorrow at the European Council.

Rushanara Ali: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the autumn statement revealed that the Government are now borrowing £212 billion more than they previously planned to?

David Cameron: I would take that from the hon. Lady if her plans were not to borrow even more. The point is—[ Interruption. ] I know that the Labour party was desperately disappointed that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that borrowing would come down this year as well as last year, but that is the fact.

Graham Brady: The Prime Minister has rightly said that we are locked in a global economic race. Does he share my concern that having the highest aviation taxes in the world makes it harder for business to compete and increases the cost of living? Will he ask the Treasury to conduct a full review of whether aviation taxes cost Britain more than they bring in?

David Cameron: I very much understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Obviously, I get lobbied regularly by countries around the world, particularly Commonwealth countries, about air passenger duty. We do not have any plans to commission further research at this point because we have just completed a very thorough consultation. Despite the challenge of the budget deficit, we have limited the rise in APD to inflation over the period 2010-11 to 2012-13. As a
	result, APD rates have increased by only around £1 for the majority of passengers, but I bear in mind very carefully what he says.

Emily Thornberry: The autumn statement did not include a forecast of child poverty as a result of the policies announced. Can the Prime Minister confirm that it will be published soon—I am sure that it was just an oversight—and could he tell the House whether he really believes that his policies will increase or reduce child poverty in Islington?

David Cameron: We want to see a genuine and lasting reduction in child poverty, and we need to have policies that not only address whether people are just above or just below the poverty line but actually address the causes of poverty—what it is that traps people in poverty. Of course, as the hon. Lady says, not enough money is part of it; not enough jobs is another, and that is why today’s news on unemployment is so welcome. We need to look at all the things that trap people in unemployment, which include drug and alcohol misuse and family breakdown, as well as, obviously, unemployment.

Oliver Colvile: As my right hon. Friend knows, Plymouth is a global leader in marine science engineering research. I very much welcome the initiative by the Government to spend more money on our science base. However, would he be willing to meet me, my fellow Plymouth Members of Parliament, and Plymouth businesses to discuss how Plymouth might become involved in the small cities super-broadband initiative, which will help us to rebalance our economy and attract private investment?

David Cameron: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know that he stands up very strongly for Plymouth and for Plymouth’s economy. He rightly says that we made the decision right at the start of this Government to freeze the science budget rather than cut it, as so many other budgets were cut, and I am sure that that was the right answer. Since then, we have added money back into the science budget. On broadband, I will look carefully at what he says about city broadband. I am sure that he will be glad to know that Devon and Somerset have been allocated over £33 million to deliver superfast broadband. We are working very hard to make sure that all the plans are on track to deliver the superfast broadband that is important for cities but very important for rural areas as well.

Naomi Long: The Prime Minister and Members of this House will be fully aware of the very serious threat posed to democracy by dissident republicans in Northern Ireland. However, the police have stated that there is evidence of loyalist paramilitary involvement in some of the protests and violence in Northern Ireland this week, which included the sickening attempted murder of police officers who were protecting my constituency office. Will he take this opportunity to condemn this reprehensible assault on democracy from those who style themselves as loyal? Will he agree to meet me and my colleague David Ford, the Justice Minister for Northern Ireland, to discuss the very grave security situation that is developing?

David Cameron: First, I absolutely join the hon. Lady in condemning the violence that we have seen on the streets of Belfast. As she says, in no way are these people being loyal or standing up for Britishness. Violence is absolutely unjustified in those and in other circumstances. I completely agree with what she said about the sickening attack on the police officer. We should again pay tribute to the work that the Police Service of Northern Ireland do on behalf of us all. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our complete solidarity with the hon. Lady and her colleagues, who have themselves been threatened and intimidated over recent days. I am always happy to meet and talk with Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland.

Sheryll Murray: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating two very young entrepreneurs in my constituency who have taken the initiative to start Cornish Gouda Co. and Team K fashion? Does he agree that this is just the sort of business initiative that we need to see?

David Cameron: I am delighted to join the hon. Lady in congratulating the entrepreneurs in her constituency. I am looking forward to tasting some Cornish Gouda cheese, although I probably should not for the sake of my weight. She is making an important point, which is that the start-up rate of new businesses in this country is at a record high. Because we need a rebalancing between the public sector and the private sector, we need this entrepreneurship to continue.

Lucy Powell: In opposition, the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted his Government to be the most family-friendly Government this country had ever seen, so why is he cutting maternity pay for working mothers?

David Cameron: First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to the House of Commons and congratulate her on her recent by-election success? We have had to take difficult decisions about welfare—both in-work welfare and out-of-work welfare—so we have put a cap of 1% on all the working benefits, including the one that she
	has mentioned. Above all, I think that the right thing to do is to cut the taxes of people who are in work, rather than taking more in taxes and then redistributing it through tax credits. We on this side want to cut taxes on those who work. That is what we are doing and there will be more of it to come.

Gavin Barwell: Over the past five years, benefits have risen twice as fast as salaries. Does the Prime Minister agree that, while we have a duty to the least well-off, it cannot be fair that people who are out of work enjoy bigger increases in their living standards than those who graft hard, day and night, to support themselves and their families?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend puts it extremely clearly. Many people in our country have seen a pay freeze year after year, yet welfare benefits have gone up year after year. So, in politics, we face a choice: do we go on putting those welfare benefits up, which does not help those who are in work and on a pay freeze, or do we take the tough and necessary decision? We have taken the tough and necessary decision. The only Labour welfare Minister that anyone took seriously was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). He has said that Labour’s approach simply is not serious, and once again he is right.

Angus Robertson: I congratulate the Prime Minister and the UK Government on following the lead of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament by introducing equal marriage, minimum alcohol pricing and, previously, the smoking ban. Given that unemployment is now lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, will he follow the lead of the Scottish Government by introducing more shovel-ready measures to stimulate economic growth?

David Cameron: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that, because of the measures taken in the autumn statement, there is an extra £300 million for the Scottish Government to spend, and if they want to spend it on shovel-ready measures, they can. I am also happy that, when good policies are introduced in any part of the United Kingdom, we all have the opportunity to follow them.

Patrick Finucane Report

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Sir Desmond de Silva’s report into the nature and extent of state collusion in the murder of Patrick Finucane. The murder of Patrick Finucane in his home in North Belfast on Sunday l2 February 1989 was an appalling crime. He was shot 14 times as he sat down for dinner with his wife and three children. He died in front of them. His wife was injured, and Pat Finucane died in front of his family.
	In the period since the murder, there have been three full criminal investigations carried out by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Stevens. Taken together, they amount to the biggest criminal investigation in British history, led by the most senior police officer, and consisting of more than 1 million pages of documents and 12,000 witness statements obtained with full police powers. As a result of the third Stevens investigation, one of those responsible, Ken Barrett, was tried and convicted in 2004 for the murder of Patrick Finucane.
	There was a further report by Judge Cory. Both Lord Stevens and Judge Cory made it clear that there was state collusion in the murder. This itself was a shocking conclusion, and I apologised to the family on behalf of the British Government when I met them last year. But despite these reports, some 23 years after the murder, there has still only been limited information put into the public domain. The whole country and beyond is entitled to know the extent and nature of the collusion, and the extent of the failure of our state and Government. That is why, last October, this Government asked Sir Desmond de Silva to conduct an independent review of the evidence to expose the truth as quickly as possible.
	Sir Desmond has had full and unrestricted access to the Lord Stevens archive and to all Government papers. These include highly sensitive intelligence files and new and significant information that was not available to either Lord Stevens or Justice Cory, including Cabinet papers, minutes of meetings with Ministers and senior officials, and papers and guidance on agent handling. He has declassified key documents, including original intelligence material, and he has published them in volume 2 of his report today. The decision over what to publish was entirely his own—it was entirely a matter for Desmond de Silva. I believe that Sir Desmond’s report has now given us the fullest possible account of the murder of Patrick Finucane and the truth about state collusion. The extent of disclosure in today’s report is without precedent.
	Nobody has more pride than me in the work of our armed forces, police and security services. I see at close hand just what they do to keep us safe. As Sir Desmond makes clear, he is looking at
	“an extremely dark and violent time”
	in Northern Ireland’s history. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the police and security forces that served in Northern Ireland, but we should be in no doubt that this report makes extremely difficult reading. The report sets out the extent of collusion in areas such as identifying, targeting and murdering Mr Finucane; supplying a weapon and facilitating its later disappearance; and deliberately
	obstructing subsequent investigations. It also answers questions about how high up the collusion went, including the role of Ministers at the time.
	Sir Desmond is satisfied that there was not
	“an over-arching State conspiracy to murder Patrick Finucane”,
	but while he rejects any state conspiracy, he does find frankly shocking levels of state collusion. Most importantly, Sir Desmond says he is
	“left in significant doubt as to whether Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the UDA”—
	the Ulster Defence Association—
	“in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands of involvement by elements of the State.”
	He finds that
	“a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated his murder”.
	Sir Desmond cites five specific areas of collusion. First,
	“there were extensive ‘leaks’ of security force information to the UDA and other loyalist paramilitary groups.”
	He finds:
	“In 1985 the Security Service assessed that 85% of the UDA’s ‘intelligence’ originated from sources within the security forces.”
	He is
	“satisfied that this proportion would have remained largely unchanged by…the time of Patrick Finucane’s murder.”
	Secondly, there was a failure by the authorities to act on threat intelligence. Sir Desmond describes
	“an extraordinary state of affairs…in which both the Army and the RUC SB”—
	Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch—
	“had prior notice of a series of planned UDA assassinations, yet nothing was done by the RUC to seek to prevent these attacks.”
	When we read some of the specific cases in the report—page after page in chapter 7—it is really shocking that this happened in our country. In the case of Patrick Finucane, Sir Desmond says that
	“it should have been clear to the RUC SB from the threat intelligence that…the UDA were about to mount an imminent attack”,
	but
	“it is clear that they took no action whatsoever to act on the threat intelligence.”
	Thirdly, Sir Desmond confirms that employees of the state and state agents played “key roles” in the murder. He finds that
	“two agents who were at the time in the pay of agencies of the State were involved”—
	Brian Nelson and William Stobie—
	“together with another who was to become an agent of the State after his involvement in that murder”.
	It cannot be argued that these were rogue agents. Indeed, Sir Desmond concludes that Army informer Brian Nelson should
	“properly be considered to be acting in a position equivalent to an employee of the Ministry of Defence.”
	Although Nelson is found to have withheld information from his Army handlers,
	“the Army must bear a degree of responsibility for Brian Nelson's targeting activity during 1987-89, including that of Patrick Finucane.”
	Most shockingly of all, Sir Desmond says that
	“on the balance of probabilities…an RUC officer or officers did propose Patrick Finucane…as a UDA target when speaking to a loyalist paramilitary.”
	Fourthly, there was a failure to investigate and arrest key members of the West Belfast UDA over a long period of time. As I said earlier, Ken Barrett was eventually convicted of the murder. What is extraordinary is that back in 1991, instead of prosecuting him for murder as the RUC criminal investigation department wanted, the RUC special branch decided instead to recruit him as an agent.
	Fifthly, this was all part of what Sir Desmond calls a wider
	“relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice”
	after the murder had taken place. Sir Desmond finds that
	“senior Army officers deliberately lied to criminal investigators”
	and that the RUC special branch
	“were responsible for seriously obstructing the investigation.”
	On the separate question of how certain Ministers were briefed, while Sir Desmond finds no political conspiracy, he is clear that Ministers were misled. He finds that
	“the Army and Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials provided the Secretary of State for Defence with highly misleading and, in parts, factually inaccurate advice”
	about the force research unit’s “handling of Brian Nelson.” On the comments made by Douglas Hogg, Sir Desmond agrees with Lord Stevens that the briefing he received from the RUC meant that he was “compromised”. However, Sir Desmond goes on to say that there is
	“no basis for any claim that he intended his comments to provide a form of political encouragement for an attack on any solicitor.”
	More broadly on the role of Ministers, Sir Desmond says that there is
	“no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any Government Minister had foreknowledge of Patrick Finucane’s murder, nor that they were subsequently informed of any intelligence that any agency of the State had received about the threat to his life.”
	He says that the then Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, deserves
	“significant credit for withstanding considerable political pressure designed to ensure that Brian Nelson was not prosecuted.”
	As a result, of course, Nelson was prosecuted in 1992, following the first investigation by Lord Stevens.
	The collusion demonstrated beyond any doubt by Sir Desmond, which included the involvement of state agencies in murder, is totally unacceptable. We do not defend our security forces, or the many who have served in them with great distinction, by trying to claim otherwise. Collusion should never, ever happen. So on behalf of the Government, and the whole country, let me say again to the Finucane family, I am deeply sorry.
	It is vital that we learn the lessons of what went wrong, and for Government in particular to address Sir Desmond’s criticisms of a
	“wilful and abject failure by successive Governments to provide the clear policy and legal framework necessary for agent-handling operations to take place effectively and within the law.”
	Since 1989, many steps have been taken to improve the rules, procedures and oversight of intelligence work. There is now a proper legal basis for the security services,
	and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has established a framework for the authorisation of the use and conduct of agents. In addition, the activities of individual agents are now clearly recorded, along with the parameters within which they must work. The Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Office of Surveillance Commissioners now regulate the use of agents and report publicly to this House. Taken together, those changes are designed to ensure that the failures of 1989 could not be made today.
	Policing and security in Northern Ireland have been transformed, reflecting the progress that has been made in recent years. The force research unit and the special branch of the RUC have both gone, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is today one of the most scrutinised police forces anywhere in the world. It is accountable to local Ministers and a local Policing Board. I believe that it commands widespread support across the whole community.
	Through all those measures, this Government and our predecessors have shown a determination to do everything possible to ensure that no such collusion ever happens again. We will study Sir Desmond’s report in detail to see what further lessons can be learned. I have asked the Secretaries of State for Defence and Northern Ireland and the Cabinet Secretary to report back to me on all the issues that arise from the report. I will publish their responses. Other organisations that are properly independent of Government, such as the police and prosecuting authorities, will want to read the report closely and consider their own responses.
	Sir Desmond says that his conclusion
	“should not be taken to impugn the reputation of the majority of RUC and UDR officers who served with distinction during what was an extraordinarily violent period”.
	He goes on to say that
	“it would be a serious mistake for this Report to be used to promote or reinforce a particular narrative of any of the groups involved in the Troubles in Northern Ireland.”
	I am sure that those statements will have wide support in this House. We should never forget that over 3,500 people lost their lives and there were many terrible atrocities. Sir Desmond reminds us that the Provisional IRA
	“was the single greatest source of violence during this period”,
	and that a full account of the events of the late 1980s
	“would reveal the full calculating brutality of that terrorist group.”
	During the troubles over 300 RUC officers and 700 British military personnel were killed, with over 13,000 police and military injured. I pay tribute to them and to all those who defended democracy and the rule of law and created the conditions for the progress we have now seen. We must not take that progress for granted, as we have seen this week, and I pay tribute again to those in the PSNI who are once again in the front line today. We will not allow Northern Ireland to slip back to its bitter and bloody past.
	The Finucane family suffered the most grievous lost in the most appalling way imaginable. I know they oppose this review process and I respect their views. However, I do respectfully disagree with them that a public inquiry would produce a fuller picture of what happened and what went wrong. Indeed, the history of public inquiries in Northern Ireland would suggest that had we gone down that route, we would not know now what we know today.
	Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years but there is still more to do to build a genuinely shared future. One thing this Government can do to help is to face up honestly when things have gone wrong in the past. If we as a country want to uphold democracy and the rule of law, we must be prepared to be judged by the highest standards. We must also face up fully when we fall short. In showing once again that we are not afraid to do that, I hope that today’s report can contribute to moving Northern Ireland forward. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: Let me first thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the tone in which he delivered it. Let me also thank Sir Desmond de Silva for his work and how he went about his task. He has produced a serious and long report within the terms of reference he was set, and it will take time to absorb it. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s apology to the Finucane family; it is the right thing to do, and I am grateful to John Finucane for the conversation that I had with him.
	Pat Finucane was a husband, father and brother who was murdered in his own home as he sat with his family on a Sunday evening. What makes it even worse is that 23 years after this appalling crime, his family are still searching for the truth with the utmost courage and dignity.
	I agree with the Prime Minister that this report provides disturbing and uncomfortable reading for us all, because it makes it clear that there was collusion in murder and a cover-up, and furthermore that
	“Agents of the State were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder.”
	Of course, as the Prime Minister said, this should not diminish the service of thousands of police officers, soldiers and security service personnel who are dedicated to protecting and serving people in Northern Ireland. They have my admiration and I am sure that of the whole House. They will be as appalled as we all are by the findings of the report today.
	As we examine and assess the findings of this report and whether it is adequate—the Prime Minister thinks that it is—it is essential that we remember the background. An investigation into the murder of Pat Finucane in which the public had confidence was an important part of the peace process that began under Sir John Major and has continued since.
	At Weston Park in 2001 both the Irish and British Governments agreed to appoint a judge of international standing to examine six cases in which there were serious allegations of collusion by the security forces. That applied in both jurisdictions—the UK and Ireland. It was agreed that in the event that a public inquiry was recommended in any of the cases, the relevant Government would implement that recommendation.
	Judge Peter Cory was appointed and recommended that public inquiries were necessary in five separate cases. Three of those on the UK side have been completed and the one inquiry recommended on the Irish side is expected to report next year. The only outstanding case in which a public inquiry was recommended but has not taken place is that of Pat Finucane. The last Government could not reach consensus with the Finucane family on
	arrangements for such an inquiry, but towards the end of our time in office the Finucane family indicated that they would support a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, and a way forward had begun to be discussed. As the Prime Minister knows, the Opposition continue to believe that we should abide by the obligations under the Weston Park agreement. In that context, may I ask him four questions?
	First, does the Prime Minister recognise the concern that the failure to hold a public inquiry is at odds with agreements that were an essential part of the peace process? Secondly, I believe it is right to say that Sir Desmond could not compel witnesses or cross-examine them in public and had to accept the assurances of state bodies that he had been given all relevant material. Does the Prime Minister therefore recognise the concern about the limits of what the de Silva inquiry could do compared with a full public inquiry?
	Thirdly, the British and Irish Governments had been at one on this issue. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with the Irish Government about de Silva’s review and about what their position is likely to be today?
	My fourth and final question takes me to the issue of public confidence. Continuing to build trust and confidence among the communities of Northern Ireland remains essential, as the Prime Minister said. The appalling violence that we have seen on the streets of Northern Ireland in recent days reminds us of that. Judge Cory said that a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane was needed because
	“without public scrutiny doubts based solely on myth and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their malignant infection throughout the Northern Ireland community.”
	Notwithstanding the good work done by Sir Desmond de Silva, can the Prime Minister really say with confidence that the whole truth has been established in the case of Pat Finucane? How can we say that when it is dismissed by the family and many in Northern Ireland?
	We must, as a United Kingdom, accept that our state sometimes did not meet the high standards that we set ourselves during the Northern Ireland conflict. Anyone reading the report will believe that it describes an appalling episode in our history. Those in all parts of the House share a belief that we must establish the full and tested truth about Pat Finucane’s murder, but the Opposition continue to believe that a public inquiry is necessary for his family and for Northern Ireland.

David Cameron: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and the way in which he gave it. Let me say first that he is entirely right that we should take time to study and consider the report. There is a huge amount of detail in it, and lots of consequences may flow from it.
	The right hon. Gentleman focused on the important question of whether there should be a public inquiry. I made the decision that it would not be right to have one for a number of reasons. First, if we look at the other inquiries that were started after the Weston Park agreement was reached—it is worth noting that that is now more than 10 years ago—we see that some of them took five or six years or longer and cost tens of millions of pounds, and I do not believe that they got closer to the truth than de Silva has in his excellent and full report. In fact, in the case of one of those inquiries, after six
	years and £30 million, the reaction of the family, which I can understand in some ways, was to ask for a further inquiry. To me, the real question is: what is the fastest way to get to the truth and the best way to lay out what happened and provide the security that that brings? I believe that the process we have been through is right.
	On the Irish Government, I spoke this morning to Enda Kenny. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the position of the Taoiseach and the Irish Government has been in favour of a public inquiry, but I think they understand why we took our decision and respect the fact that we have been incredibly open and frank about what happened.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the limits of this process compared with the public inquiry process, we have held nothing back. De Silva says in his report that he had full access to all the documents and everything he wanted, and that the decision to redact any names or information was taken by him. Of course, there is always the question of the public inquiry. We took our decision, and I said at the time of the last election that I did not think it was right to have further open-ended public inquiries following the enormous time and expense of the Saville inquiry, and I think that that remains the right position. We need to look at ways in which we can get to the truth and help people to move ahead in Northern Ireland, and this has been a good exercise in doing just that.
	Obviously the last Government considered this matter, I am sure very carefully, but I would make the point that they had all the time between 2001 and 2010 to start the work of an inquiry and did not take that decision. I think that was partly because they understood, as we did, the problems, dangers and expense of open-ended inquiries.
	In the end, what matters is getting to the truth, and I cannot think of many other countries anywhere in the world that would set out in so much detail and with so much clarity what went wrong. It pains me to read the report, because I am so proud of our country, our institutions such as the police and our security services and what they do to keep us safe. It is agony to read in the report what happened, but it is right that we publish it. We do not need a public inquiry with cross-examination to do that, we just need a Government who are bold enough to say, “Let’s unveil what happened, let’s publish it and then let’s see the consequences.”

Laurence Robertson: I join the Prime Minister in condemning the collusion of some state agents in the murder of Mr Finucane. I, too, extend my sympathies to Mr Finucane’s family.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that it is important to see this action in the context of the 1980s, which he has rightly described as a very dangerous time in Northern Ireland? Was it not extremely important, as it is now, that intelligence gathering took place, and that in general terms it saved many lives? Does he further agree that any leaks from the RUC that Sir Desmond has identified ought also to be seen in the right context, because the RUC at that time, like the PSNI this week, stood between Northern Ireland and the abyss?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer us back to what was happening in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and the atmosphere and pressures of that time, and to talk about the important work that agents do in countering terrorism. Of course, we should continue that work, properly regulated and dealt with, as I argued earlier. We have to be careful, though, because if we are proud of the health of our democracy, the rule of law and our system, we have to expect the highest standards when we look back. We cannot just say, “Well, bad things happened. Other people did bad things, we did bad things”. We have to be better than that, and that is what the report and our response should be about.

Paul Murphy: May I ask the Prime Minister which Ministers he intends to consult on the matter? He was right to point out the destruction that the Provisional IRA wreaked upon people’s lives in Northern Ireland, but there is no equivalence between what a terrorist organisation does and what a state does. It is important that the Attorney-General should be involved in looking carefully at the report, because there might well have to be prosecutions arising from it.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes exactly the point that I was trying to make a moment ago. We cannot try to draw an equivalence between a state and a terrorist organisation. We have to have the highest standards, and it is right to ask that we live up to them.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point about what others should do, it is important in our country that the prosecuting authorities and the police are independent and go where the evidence takes them. I am sure they will want to study the report carefully, because it has new information and new facts and makes some uncomfortable points about what parts of the RUC and other organisations did.

Menzies Campbell: May I support the observation that the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made about the need to consider whether prosecution is justified, which is a matter not for the Prime Minister but for the Attorney-General? In dealing with that, I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will show the same independence of mind and integrity that Sir Patrick Mayhew demonstrated in this case.
	In the more than 25 years for which I have been a Member of this House, I cannot remember a statement from the Dispatch Box that has filled me with more revulsion and horror than the Prime Minister’s outlining of the events that happened. The violation of the Finucane family and the horror of the assassination were compounded by what we now know where deliberate attempts at obfuscation. If the report does anything, it surely points out the crucial fact that when dealing with terrorism, we must not descend to the terrorists’ level, because by doing so we lose the argument.

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend puts the point incredibly clearly. There are some very shocking things in this report. What perhaps shocked me the most are some of the things that happened after the murder took place. The fact that someone who was effectively one of those responsible for the murder was
	then hired as an agent is truly shocking. The fact that the Army—it says here—did not co-operate properly with the Stevens inquiry, and effectively lied to it, is shocking. That is why it is so important that we lay this bare. The point my right hon. and learned Friend makes about never descending to that level is that whatever battle we are fighting against terror—and we are fighting battles against terror all the time—we have to maintain that we are at all times obeying the rule of law.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts and his statement, which is indeed very welcome. I welcome the report, given its limitations, in so far as it takes us a little further down the road towards truth. It provides some further chilling detail for this House about what many of us already know, but in my opinion it falls far short and does not go far enough. It helps that some of the frightening details have emerged in the report, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about what happened after the murder. For me, that is significant, because it is only a continuation of some things that were done before the murder, which Sir Desmond was not able to confirm, and there was a deep conspiracy running through the elements that were involved.
	There was failure, obstruction and general neglect of duty—the fact that the Army was not able to co-operate with Stevens; the fact that a Minister of this House was misled and misinformed prior to the murder, and made statements to this House. Indeed, my colleague Seamus Mallon, a former Member of this House, made reference to the very point, on the day that statement was made, that this would cost lives.
	The report confirms that the UDA was steered and prompted to murder Pat Finucane by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch, instead of performing the role of questioning and putting people in prison. The UDA gunman was coached as to who might be targeted for murder—two other lawyers were targeted as well. Police files were handed to the UDA for further murder operations, involving not just those three lawyers but further people.
	I was very proud to stand with the Finucane family in those desperate times at Pat’s funeral, as they buried him. The Social Democratic and Labour party and I will stand with them today—and indeed into the future—because we support their demand for a full public inquiry. We feel that we have still got only half the truth out. This report confirms why Judge Cory was right, as the family were right, to demand an open, international, independent inquiry. There are people out there who should be held to account, even though it is 23 years too late. In the light of this report, I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider and agree to the family’s request for a full inquiry and prosecutions.
	Beyond that, the Finucane report confirms the case for a comprehensive truth process, which we all need. The need for such a process grows more urgent by the day. I echo the words of other colleagues. We should not set our standards by the standards of the Provisional IRA or any loyalist group, so will the Prime Minister please reconsider and allow a full inquiry?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he speaks with real knowledge, passion and interest on this issue. First,
	on how we have a process in Northern Ireland of getting to the truth in more of these cases, I commend the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. It has done good work, it can continue to do good work and we should continue to fund it so that it can do so.
	On whether an inquiry would find out more, I would make two points. First, if we have an inquiry process, the whole process, as we saw with Saville, would start with an enormous discussion about who had anonymity and how the case would proceed. In the case of Saville, that went on for many years before the investigation started. If we look at other public inquiries, I would argue that some of them have got less close to the truth than this report.
	I would make one further point, which is that the Stevens process was an investigation with the full powers of a criminal investigation. Now it is open to the authorities, if they want, to repeat that process. That combination of having had a criminal investigation—which made some progress and led to a prosecution—having had the fullest possible disclosure of all the documents and all the evidence, and then saying to the prosecuting and other authorities that it is up to them, if they believe there is further work that can be done, is the right approach. It is faster and more effective than either starting with a public inquiry process now or, had we or a previous Government done so a few years ago, having one that would only just be getting into gear now.

Patrick Mercer: Speaking as someone who has been involved in both intelligence work and counter-intelligence work at this most difficult period, may I say that I was proud to stand alongside police officers and Army officers who did their work gallantly, properly and within the law? Will the Prime Minister please ensure that if there are cases for prosecutions of those who broke the law, they will be pursued unflinchingly?

David Cameron: I think the whole House and, indeed, the country—and many people in Northern Ireland—will have listened to someone who served in our forces, reached a senior rank in our forces, served in Northern Ireland and served in intelligence matters saying that as clearly as he has. That is extremely important. It is so important for our military, our Security Service and our police that serving and previous members say that what they did was done with honour, gallantry and in a way that was right. Their good name is besmirched by the terrible things we read in this report, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right that where there should be criminal investigations, there should be such investigations.

Shaun Woodward: May I join the Prime Minister in extending an apology to the Finucane family, but may I also respectfully disagree with the conclusion he reaches from this report? My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is entirely right to conclude that we should uphold the call for a full independent inquiry. I say respectfully to the Prime Minister that it might be difficult to establish the terms of reference for such a judicial inquiry, but that should never be confused with the need for such an inquiry to take place. It might be difficult, but that does not mean that we should not pursue justice.
	This report is indeed shocking. If I may, I want to ask the Prime Minister about one of its findings. I share his full admiration for the security services and the forces that have undoubtedly saved many lives in Northern Ireland, but this report finds, in just one conclusion, that Ministers were misled about the flow of information from the security forces to loyalist paramilitaries. Far from, as Ministers were told at the time, there being just a few rogue individuals—a phrase known to this House on other matters—it turns out that Desmond de Silva finds that between 1987 and 1989 there were 287 instances of that flow of information, some of which compromised the most top-secret security information.
	I am afraid that this report is just the beginning of a set of questions. It is not a set of answers. The Prime Minister’s statement was indeed grave. For the good reputation of the security forces, he would be wise to reconsider. They have been very badly damaged by the conclusions of this report. For their good reputation and for the Finucane family, will he reconsider having an inquiry?

David Cameron: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question and the way he puts it. Let me be clear: the reason for not having a full public inquiry is not that it would not be possible to establish the terms of reference. My view is that it is not the right approach, because I do not think it would achieve what we need to achieve. I do not necessarily think that a long, open-ended, very expensive inquiry would actually get further than what we have in this report, which has been an exercise in opening up government, the security services and the police to the maximum extent possible. Nothing has been held back, so I do not think we will get further. Of course, a public inquiry would put a stay on any potential prosecution while it was under way. We are not having a public inquiry because I do not believe it is the right approach; I think this report is the right approach—and as I say, I cannot think of any other country in the world that would open itself up in the way that we have quite rightly done so.
	The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about Ministers being misled is absolutely right. That is why I said in my statement that the Cabinet Secretary is one of the people who will report back to me about lessons that need to be learned or problems that still need to be uncovered or dealt with. That is important. The only point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman about the role of the security services is that things have changed so fundamentally since 1989. In 1987 and ’88, it was still a time when Ministers at this Dispatch Box did not even admit that we had a Security Service. It is now on a statutory basis—it is properly regulated and under the law—there are information commissioners who have to examine what is done and ministerial permission is properly sought in all the proper ways. The situation is totally transformed. That does not mean that there are not lessons to be learned, however, which is why the Defence Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary will all be reading this report carefully and reporting back to me, and I will make those reports public.

Bob Stewart: I, like my good friend, the hon. and gallant Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), was an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland.
	Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the identities of those people from all sides who gave information to the security forces—I had well over 100 people giving information to me, albeit sometimes indirectly—will be kept secret, because it would be devastating if such information were ever to get out?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the process of writing these reports, the author has to consider carefully article 2—the right to life of all those people contained in the report. It was Sir Desmond de Silva’s decision about who to identify and who not to identify. It is important to bear in mind that although there are occasions where someone is not identified in the report because of that article 2 consideration, there are also occasions where someone cannot be identified because the report cannot be sure about who was responsible for such and such an action. It needs to be read in that way.

Nigel Dodds: When this review was announced to this House in October last year, I said that the murder of Pat Finucane was
	“an atrocious, terrible, despicable crime.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 343.]
	We repeat that today. Anyone guilty in any way of involvement in his murder needs to face justice. There should be no covering up or resiling from that. With reference to the fact that some 3,500 people were murdered in the course of the troubles, with over 1,000 of them being in the security forces, as the Prime Minister referenced, does he accept that he owes it and this House owes it to all the victims on all sides to ensure that all murders are fully investigated and that there is a sense of justice for all families, no matter on what side, who find themselves victims of terrorism?
	Given the problems with public inquiries, not least the expense, does the Prime Minister accept that it is now clear that such inquiries do not provide closure—despite what has been said? We have seen that in Northern Ireland with the Bloody Sunday inquiry and other inquiries. The evidence is clear that they have had the effect in the minds of many of elevating certain crimes above other crimes where there have also been failings and which are equally heinous?
	Finally, does the Prime Minister agree with me about the sight of Sinn Fein leaders hypocritically lecturing people today about human rights—leaders of Sinn Fein who have been deeply and intensely involved personally in murder and terrible terrorist crimes? People need to hear a clear message from the Prime Minister that wrongdoing on all sides will be punished, but that we will never succumb to the propaganda of elevating terrorists and equating them—no matter who they are—with the tens of thousands of decent ordinary people in the security forces who have protected life and limb during 30 to 40 years of terrible violence in Northern Ireland.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Making sure that others in Northern Ireland can find justice is, I think, the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. As I said, it should continue with its work. As to what the right hon. Gentleman says specifically about wrongdoing by the IRA, the report could not be clearer that it bears an enormous responsibility, as I read out in my statement, for an extremely bloodthirsty
	campaign and for a huge amount of the suffering caused. Sir Desmond de Silva could not be more frank about that, but that does not mean that we should not do what a proper democratic state under the rule of law does, which is to explain what went wrong and how we learn lessons from it.

Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Sir Desmond in his report finds that successive Governments failed to put in place proper guidelines for agents and their handlers, which resulted in agents participating in serious crime without adequate control by their handlers? Will he reassure the House that there are now proper guidelines and adequate controls?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This is one of the report’s key findings for government: successive Governments, one after another, did not crack the problem of putting in place a legal basis for the security services and agent handling, or indeed provide guidance and processes. In my experience as Prime Minister for the last two and a half years, I believe that does now exist. We have the regulation of investigatory powers; we have intelligence commissioners and intercept commissioners; we have annual reports by the heads of the services; we have the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has given an enormous amount of access and information; and we have ministerial oversight by the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary of the two principal services. I think the situation is transformed. Even since I have been Prime Minister we have issued quite a lot of guidance—at the time of the Guantanamo detainees issue—to try to make sure that we deal with this problem properly. I am always open to further suggestions, but the situation has been transformed over the past 20 years.

Peter Hain: Notwithstanding the disagreement over an inquiry, may I commend the Prime Minister for the searing honesty of his statement, which allows the whole House to express solidarity with the Finucane family who are with us today? What this report and the Prime Minister have revealed is even worse than I thought and was informed about as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The fact that special branch agents and members of the Army’s force research unit were involved and up to their necks in this murder is horrendous. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right therefore that Colonel Gordon Kerr, commanding officer of the force research unit at the time, should have been promoted subsequently to brigadier?

David Cameron: First, let me echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Finucane family. They have carried out a very respectful, very legitimate and perfectly fair campaign, because they want justice for the appalling wrong done to Pat and the appalling way in which he was murdered. I had a meeting with them last year, and while, obviously, we did not agree about the outcome, I hope they can see that I was sincere in saying that I would open every door, I would open every part of Whitehall and do everything I could to try to get the fullest, truest picture of what happened as quickly as possible. I profoundly believe that that is the right approach, rather than a costly, lengthy public inquiry, which might not—may well not—get as far as this report.
	On what the right hon. Gentleman says about the specific individual, much information about what individual people did is in that report. As I have said, it is now open for different authorities to take the steps that they find appropriate. I have specifically asked the Defence Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary to examine what is in the report and to give any lessons back directly to me, which I will then publish.

Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister has just made a brief reference to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Does he agree with me that the proposal to give that Committee enhanced investigative powers under the forthcoming Justice and Security Bill ought to add further reassurance for the future of the power and ability of democratic bodies to investigate alleged past abuses?

David Cameron: The Intelligence and Security Committee does an important job. I found particularly our recent meeting extremely helpful and informative. The Committee is like a second set of eyes on the judgments of Ministers and others, and it has the access in order to question and call them to account. That is an important part of the picture; as important are the guidance and rules that we set for our security and intelligence services. Those were clearly wanting—they did not exist in this case—but they are now in place.

Paul Goggins: I acknowledge the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s statement and of the apology he gave, but does he accept that if Widgery had been followed by a review rather than by the Saville inquiry—for all the time and money it cost—the apology he gave in this House in June 2010 would not have carried the force that it did. Does he not accept that, if the family continue to believe that there are questions that remain unanswered, their campaign for a public inquiry will continue and one day will have to be met?

David Cameron: I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, because I know that he was a dedicated Northern Ireland Minister. What I would say is that there is a difference between the two cases. This review followed the three Stevens investigations, which were extensive police investigations with full police powers. It seems to me that after those, what was lacking—as Stevens had talked about collusion and pointed to collusion—was a full revelation of the extent of that collusion, and I think that that is what this report provides.
	If there is a need for follow-up, in terms of, for instance, a policing or a prosecution, it is now open to those agencies to arrange that. If we went into a long inquiry process, it would all have to be put off until the future, with no guarantee that we would get any further than the massive amount of detail and disclosure that is included in this report.

Bob Blackman: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the public inquiry into the murder of Billy Wright took some six years and cost £30 million to administer, and that in the end the family and everyone else were extremely dissatisfied with the outcome? Does he not agree that it is far better to take
	action now on this report, to bring those responsible to justice, and to achieve closure for the family and all who mourn Pat Finucane’s loss?

David Cameron: Let me say first that no one would want to compare Pat Finucane to Billy Wright. The report states very clearly that there was no evidence that he was a member of the IRA. However, my hon. Friend has made an important point about what happened at the end of some of those other inquiries—and the Wright inquiry is an example—after six or seven years, and after tens of millions of pounds had been spent. The Wright inquiry did not actually find the answer to the question of how the murder had taken place, and at the end of it the family said that they wanted another inquiry. My point is that the fact that an inquiry is public does not mean that we get any further than we have in the full opening process that we have now undergone, and that is why I think that this is the right answer.

Naomi Long: Today will be a very emotional and distressing day for the Finucane family. I know that they were viciously robbed of a father, a husband, a brother and a son, and my thoughts and prayers are very much with them at this very difficult time. They are also with those who serve Northern Ireland with integrity, and who will find the report painful reading.
	The Prime Minister has outlined the changes in the security services and policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. However, Sir Desmond said in his report that there was a
	“seriously disproportionate focus by the RUC on acting upon… intelligence that related to individuals… being targeted by republican paramilitary groups”,
	as opposed to loyalist groups. Can the Prime Minister assure us categorically that such a disparity will never be permitted again, and that all terrorism will be treated with equal seriousness and diligence?
	The Prime Minister also acknowledged that there were many other families who had lost their relatives at the hands of republican and loyalist terrorists, and to whom no inquiries had been granted. Those families are no nearer to knowing the truth about the death of their loved ones, despite the diligent work of the Historical Enquiries Team. Will the Prime Minister now commit himself to delivering a comprehensive process to address the past and its legacy—a process that can focus on truth, on justice and, crucially, on reconciliation?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady made an important point about the disparity between investigations of loyalist terrorism and investigations of republican terrorism. She should read the report carefully, because it contains some quite interesting figures relating to the number of loyalist murderers who have been brought to justice—and to some extent it is encouraging that that did happen—but I entirely agree with the thrust of her question, and that is why I think that the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been so important.
	When I visited one of the PSNI’s training colleges some years ago, I was struck by the fact that the ethos of the organisation was all about trying to bring the community
	together and trying to police the community together, and by the fact that it focused on recruiting from right across the community. I think I can give an assurance that the danger of their being different levels of investigation of different parts of the community will not arise again.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Prime Minister for his robust, honest and heartfelt statement and apology. I also thank Sir Desmond for his report and the Police Service of Northern Ireland for their continuing excellent work, and associate myself and my colleagues with, in particular, the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) in expressing sympathy for and solidarity with the Finucane family.
	Given that something deeply wrong was done on a regular basis by the state and agents of the state but there are now proper legal structures in which agents can work, will the Prime Minister assure us that in future no agents of the state or members of state institutions will work with the paramilitaries under cover, other than those whose actions have been authorised and have been reported to the authorities, and who are accountable to the relevant Committee of Parliament and to him?

David Cameron: I think that what my right hon. Friend is asking is that there should be no circumstances in which there are rogue agents. These things must be done within the law, within proper guidance and within proper procedures, as is entirely right. I can therefore give him the assurance for which he has asked.

Kate Hoey: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his apology, and I welcome the tone of his statement. Like him, I do not think that a full new independent public inquiry into this very tragic matter would serve any purpose for anyone, but does he agree that the way in which the Government and the country can accept its failings should serve as a lesson to other countries? Does he not think that the Irish Government might consider looking into some of the rumours, and actual evidence, of collusion between the Irish police over such terrible atrocities as the Kingsmill bombing?

David Cameron: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I hope that others can see that we are holding back nothing, but opening up and showing what happened in all its unbelievable ghastliness. I hope that the Irish Government will appreciate that, while, perhaps, still believing that a different path should be taken.
	The House may be interested to hear the figures relating to other inquiries. The Robert Hamill inquiry began in 2004 and was completed in April 2011, but its findings have not yet been published because of live criminal proceedings. The Rosemary Nelson inquiry report was published in May 2011. The Billy Wright inquiry cost £30.5 million, the Hamill inquiry £32.6 million, and the Nelson inquiry £46.5 million. Each of those inquiries overran significantly in terms of both time and money. The Wright and Hamill inquiries were both established under the Inquiries Act 2005, so the argument that somehow all this was sorted because of a new Inquiries Act does not really hold water.

Jack Lopresti: Does the Prime Minister agree that facing up to the past in this way and looking at these awful events is a crucial part of the healing process that Northern Ireland so desperately needs?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is immensely painful to do, but I think the Government have shown that they are prepared to do it, and others must do the same in all parts. That, I think, is how we can come to terms with the past. I hear very clearly the remarks of Opposition Members about trying to create a single process, and obviously I listen to that, but in the end the best way of coming to terms with the past is to be open, frank, clear and transparent about what happened, and to apologise when that is appropriate.

Lady Hermon: I join others who have expressed condemnation of the murder of Pat Finucane. He was killed brutally in front of a devoted family, and I am deeply, deeply sorry about that. However, I must refute the widespread and unfair criticism of the RUC that I have heard in the House today.
	The Prime Minister quoted Sir Desmond’s observation that nothing that he said should
	“be taken to impugn the reputation of the majority of RUC…who served with distinction during what was an extraordinarily violent period”.
	In the light of what Sir Desmond said, I ask the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to put on record his personal, sincere admiration for the extraordinary work done by RUC officers—men and women—of whom my late husband was enormously proud. He was Chief Constable at the time, and I am very sorry indeed that Pat Finucane died in such a brutal manner, but I should like the Prime Minister to pay warm tribute to the RUC, of whom my husband was so very proud.

David Cameron: I am happy to pay warm tribute to the RUC and the people who served in it, because they faced the most unbelievable pressure. They were dealing with the most unbelievably difficult set of circumstances. I know that the overwhelming majority of people in the Royal Ulster Constabulary served with bravery, with dedication, and with regard to the law and to truth; I know that the hon. Lady’s husband was one of those; and I know that in his report Desmond de Silva was very clear about the good work that the RUC did. That is why it is so painful to read about the bad things that happened in parts of the RUC. It is particularly striking that the RUC CID wanted to prosecute Barratt, who should originally have been prosecuted for the murder, but the Special Branch decided to recruit him. It is clear there were some very bad apples doing the wrong thing, but that does not impugn the reputation of the whole of the RUC that served our country with great dedication.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statesman-like way he has presented this case. It cannot have been easy; indeed, I suspect it was incredibly difficult. I also pay tribute to the family, who must have gone through a very difficult time over the past 23 years, and I pay tribute, too, to the servicemen and women who did their
	job in a legal manner, especially the Royal Marines, as I know they lost a number of lives in Northern Ireland. If there were a review, how long does my right hon. Friend think it would take?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about those who served and those who continue to serve, including the Royal Marines. One cannot say exactly how long a public inquiry would take, but as we have learnt from experience, an enormous amount of ground clearing work would need to be done before it could even get going—the process of everyone hiring lawyers and trying to work out who is going to have anonymity and so forth. I came to office having made a promise that we were not going to have further costly open-ended inquiries. I have looked at the evidence in this case, and I have met the family, and I have seen that there is nothing the Government are holding back. I could see a stronger case for an inquiry if there was an open question about whether we were prepared to admit there was a problem with the MOD; we are. Was there a problem with parts of the RUC? There was. Were Ministers misled? I can say yes, they were. There is no argument that we are holding back on, so what matters is getting to the truth with the greatest disclosure, and I do not think that that requires an inquiry.

Mark Durkan: The Prime Minister must realise that many of us find it hard to leave these matters simply to the interpretations and inferences Desmond de Silva has drawn from the dreadful evidence his inquiry has produced. We are dealing with a situation where terrorism took on the form of paramilitarism and military intelligence took on the form of para-terrorism. That is what was happening. In Special Branch, the force research unit and the secret services, there was a culture of anything goes but nobody knows—and following Desmond de Silva’s report we are still being asked to accept that nobody knows. Our predecessor Social Democratic and Labour party MPs told the Ministers of the time that that was what was going on. That is why we said we needed a new beginning to policing and we needed Special Branch to go, yet in all that time we were denounced, denigrated and dismissed. The one good thing about the Prime Minister’s statement today is that others in this House can no longer be in denial about what was happening.
	There were so many levels and layers of collusion—all the deadly dereliction and the deviance and the dark deployment—but we are being asked to agree that it all adds up to there being no co-ordination. The Prime Minister must know that if we are to get to the bottom of this, we have to get to the top of it, but Desmond de Silva is trying to tell us, “No, there was no top.”

David Cameron: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, the campaign he has fought and the points he has made. He and his predecessors in the SDLP were right about what went wrong, and this report shows that they were right. It shows the extent to which we are prepared to open up and be clear about what happened. As for the organisations he mentions, the FRU has gone, and the RUC Special Branch has gone, so the question now is whether there is anything else to discover that this report has not discovered but a public inquiry would, and I do not believe there is.
	In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about how high this went, Sir Desmond de Silva is absolutely clear that Ministers were misled and briefings were given that should not have been given, but he does not find that there was a ministerial conspiracy or ministerial order for the murder of Pat Finucane. That is very important. We now have a true picture and it is for others, including the police and the prosecuting authorities, to work out whether there is anything more that can be done.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend’s statement was full of shocking and shameful revelations. Notwithstanding the dignity and good work of the vast majority of our security services in the past, can he confirm that the oversight, scrutiny and accountability of our intelligence services today is completely different?

David Cameron: I am happy to give that assurance. I would not stand here and say it is perfect in every way. There are always improvements that we can make to the arrangements, which is why we have an Intelligence and Security Committee that scrutinises what is done and an Intelligence Services Commissioner who looks into the work that is done, but the situation has been transformed. When we read this report and think about what happened and what these agents were doing, it appears that that was a completely different world, where there does not seem to have been rules, processes, the rule of law, consideration of human rights or ministerial oversight. There were not those things that there are now.

Kevin Brennan: The Prime Minister has told us that the report makes it clear that Ministers were misled during this process. What does the report say about when Ministers were first made aware in briefings that this collusion was taking place?

David Cameron: I have not got that information to hand, but the advice to Ministers is covered in the report. I think one of the report’s key findings on ministerial action is to do with whether Nelson should have been prosecuted. It is argued that the advice to Ministers was misleading, and as a result a decision was made to hold a Shawcross process, which is when the Attorney-General asks Ministers for advice on whether a prosecution should go ahead. The key point is that, as de Silva says, Paddy Mayhew as Attorney-General demonstrated his independence—and, indeed, good judgment—and said a prosecution should go ahead.

Rehman Chishti: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this report has provided us with the fullest possible account of what happened in this tragic case?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I think the report has done that. As Desmond de Silva makes clear in the introduction to the report, he was given access to all the papers he wanted to see in every part of Government, including Cabinet papers and intelligence papers. I must not put words in his mouth, but he was not left saying that a
	further inquiry was necessary. He was left saying, “I got all the information I needed to set out the fullest possible picture I could.”

William McCrea: Coming from a family that knows the pain caused by the murder of loved ones, I understand the pain experienced by the Finucane family, but in the light of the demands by Enda Kenny for a public inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane, has the Prime Minister made representations to the Irish Government to hold a public inquiry into collusion between previous Governments of the Irish Republic and the IRA, including the arming of the Provisional IRA and inflicting 30 years of murder and mayhem on the people of Northern Ireland? Should an apology not be forthcoming from the Irish Republic, and should all those guilty of murder not face the full rigours of the law, irrespective of who they are and what position they hold, whether in the Dail or Stormont?

David Cameron: Every organisation—every Government—has to face up to its own history and explain what it did and why. The British Government get all sorts of criticism, but I do not think anyone can criticise us for not being incredibly open about what happened. I would also say that British-Irish relations are better today than probably at any time in the last 25 years. Getting to the truth about the past really matters, of course, but so, too, does trying to secure a peaceful future for Northern Ireland, and those relations are very important for that, and I want to build on them.

Chris Ruane: I have met the family of Pat Finucane here in Parliament and I pay tribute to them for the dignity with which they have conducted themselves in their quest for justice. Public inquiries do not have to be over-long and over-expensive, as the Baha Mousa inquiry shows. If after reading the de Silva report the family of Pat Finucane still request a public inquiry, will the Prime Minister listen to their request?

David Cameron: I myself met the Finucane family and I will always listen to what they say, but I have to say that I think that what we have done—we have taken a very open approach, putting all the information out there in public—is the right approach and is the best way to get to the truth of what happened.
	The hon. Gentleman says that public inquiries do not necessarily take a long time. I refer him to the fact that the other inquiries set up after 2004 ended up costing tens of millions of pounds. The Baha Mousa inquiry was about one individual and a number of hours spent in custody, whereas this is about an issue that has had the biggest police investigation in British history—involving three separate sets of investigations and millions of documents. There would be no concept of a short inquiry for this; it would be multi-year, multi-million pound, with absolutely no guarantee that it would get closer to the truth than this extremely open and truthful document we have in front of us.

David Simpson: The review has now been completed, the Prime Minister has, again, come to the Dispatch Box and apologised, and, yes, the murder has to be condemned. However, may I remind
	the Prime Minister that there are those of us on these Benches, including my own family, who have lost loved ones to the provos over the past 25 years? My family lost four of its members, but no review and no public inquiry was offered to them. When are we going to see equality for all families?

David Cameron: Many people in this House have suffered loss because of terrorists. I remember the first Member of Parliament who ever represented me, Airey Neave, and I think of Ian Gow, for whom I once had the huge privilege of writing a speech when I was a junior researcher. I remember going to have a drink with him in this House and getting to know him a little, and then reading one day that he had been murdered by the IRA. We cannot have an inquiry into every one of those murders; we have to find a way of trying to come to terms with the past. People have suffered dreadfully, but we have to find a way of moving ahead in Northern Ireland, which the people of Northern Ireland have done, and I believe it is our job to encourage that.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House with this statement. Nevertheless, this remains a paper review. He has asked a number of his Departments to look at various issues and open up Whitehall to questions, so may I ask him to think again about a public inquiry? There is a Treasury Solicitor’s Department—a Government Department—which can co-ordinate a public inquiry very simply and cheaply, along the lines of the Baha Mousa inquiry. May I also ask the Prime Minister to meet the family today to ask them whether they think this paper review seeks the truth about the death of Pat Finucane?

David Cameron: I would not describe this simply as a “paper review”; Desmond de Silva did meet some people and conducted interviews. The hon. Lady should also remember that it was a review based on the fact that there had been the largest criminal investigation in British history, which had interviewed everybody and had the documentation. Alongside that—all the access to the Stevens material—Desmond de Silva also had access to all the intelligence and other material in Whitehall. On that basis, I think it is a very complete piece of work.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I stand solidly and squarely with Geraldine Finucane, her two sons and daughter, and the wider Finucane family. I recognise that many people and many families, not least Members of this House, from Northern Ireland have also suffered as a result of more than 30 years of the troubles. Does the Prime Minister not now consider, in view of de Silva’s report, which indicated very high levels of state collusion, that there is a need for an international public inquiry that will address issues of collusion and complicity? We in the Social Democratic and Labour party—our current three Members and our predecessors—always recognised and acknowledged the deep levels of collusion in Northern Ireland that resulted in murders right across the community, whether on the loyalist or on the republican side. For that reason, we now need an international public inquiry, to investigate not only Pat Finucane’s murder but all the other murders that were a result of state collusion and state complicity.

David Cameron: This report is about state collusion and state complicity. I cannot think of a country anywhere else in the world that would have revealed in more detail, with no holds barred and no documents held back, the full extent of that collusion, and stood up, put its hand up and said, “This is what went wrong. This is what we apologise for. This is how we will make sure it never takes place again.” I recommend that the hon. Lady look at paragraph 113, where de Silva talks about his “Lessons for the future” and states:
	“It is essential that the involvement of agents in serious criminal offences can always be reviewed and investigated and that allegations of collusion with terrorist groups are rigorously pursued. Perhaps the most obvious and significant lesson of all, however, is that it should not take over 23 years to properly examine, unravel and publish a full account of collusion in the murder of a solicitor that took place in the United Kingdom.”
	I believe that Desmond de Silva is saying that that is what has been done; that is what has been laid bare. It has not taken a public inquiry; it has taken a Government to open up everything and say, “Let’s get the truth out. And here it is.”

John McDonnell: If the Lawrence and Hillsborough families have taught us anything, it is that the families will not go away until they see justice in their terms. In an Adjournment debate I sought in 1999, I read into the record statements made in 1989 by an Under-Secretary at the Home Office. He had said that “a number of solicitors” were “unduly sympathetic” to the cause of the IRA, adding that these statements were made on the basis of “advice” and “guidance” from people “dealing with the matters”. Pat Finucane was murdered three and a half weeks later. The inquiry has said that there is no basis for any claim that the then Under-Secretary intended his comments to provide a form of political encouragement for any attack on any solicitor, but these words were certainly unwise and they contributed to a climate in which solicitors were made vulnerable—not only Pat Finucane, but Rosemary Nelson. Because these were statements by a Government Minister, does the Prime Minister’s apology extend to an apology for those expressions by the then Under-Secretary?

David Cameron: Let me first respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Hillsborough. There was a public inquiry and an inquest, but they were, in effect, faulty. It took an act by Government, with the Bishop of Liverpool, to lay open all the information. The families have thus been able to see the truth and, hopefully, they will be able to get that new inquest. I would argue that in this case that is what has happened: there was this full police investigation, but instead of having a public inquiry we have opened up and given all the information that is necessary.
	On Douglas Hogg, I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the report carefully. It finds that Douglas Hogg was briefed in a way that he should not have been briefed, that that compromised him and that therefore what he said was unfortunate. But the report does not find that he in any way encouraged the action that took place or in any way knew about it. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the report very carefully in that regard.

Gregory Campbell: There has of course been widespread condemnation of the murder of Pat Finucane and of all the others in
	Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister alluded to trying to get at the truth of this issue. Does he accept that after a series of inquiries, reviews and reports that have cost tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions, into a small number of totally and utterly regrettable and unacceptable incidents, the problem that we have in this House is the credibility gap, because others out there caused the violence in the first instance and have never apologised, have never reviewed and have never reported? They have never said sorry for the activities that they carried out, which ensured that others responded to their activities. Will the Prime Minister indicate that they should open up and say sorry for what they have done—for 30 years of murder?

David Cameron: Everyone has to face up to what they did and what they got wrong. It is up to those people responsible for violence, for terror, for murder to do that; they should apologise for what they did. But let me repeat: we should not put ourselves in this House, in government and in a state that believes in the rule of law, democracy and human rights, on a level with those organisations. We expect higher standards and when we get it wrong, we need to explain and completely open up in the way that we have done today.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I agree with his decision not to have a public inquiry. The Prime Minister is aware of the hurt that runs very deep among the whole of Northern Ireland—among people on both sides. Hurt is not just on one side of the community; it is universal and we all have it. I am thinking of the Darkley gospel hall massacre, when people worshipping God on a Sunday night were killed by republicans; the people killed—burnt to a cinder—and injured by republicans at the La Mon restaurant; the people who were killed and injured by republicans at the Abercorn restaurant as they were enjoying a meal; the Ballydugan killing by republicans of four Ulster Defence Regiment men, three of whom I knew personally. Some £191 million has been set aside for the Bloody Sunday inquiry into the deaths of 13 people. The Prime Minister has mentioned the Historical Enquiries Team, whose budget is £38 million to carry out 3,487 inquiries into murders. What steps has he taken to help the HET do more and get answers for people who have lost loved ones?

David Cameron: We continue to fund the Historical Enquiries team. I think it does good work and it should continue to do that. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that whatever terrible event we are discussing, people will always bring up other terrible events and quite rightly say, “Well, what about an inquiry into that? What information can we find out about it?” What is different in this case is that it highlights the appalling level of collusion there was and brings to the surface, effectively, not just one appalling murder but a series of appalling steps that were being taken and that need to be addressed.

Ian Paisley Jnr: As we kick over the charred embers of Ulster’s past, an appalling and awful picture emerges, but today we are seeing only one tiny part of that. The Prime Minister is utterly correct to make it clear that there should not be a public
	inquiry into this matter, first because it would wasteful, and secondly because if he grants a public inquiry in this case he knows that a chorus of hundreds of people from before Patrick Finucane was murdered and hundreds of people from after Patrick Finucane was murdered will ask, “Why not my relative? Why not me?” The Prime Minister is right to hold fast to that view and should not be swayed.
	I also agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and ask the Prime Minister to respond to them directly. They made it clear that there is more than a shred of evidence that the Republic of Ireland’s Government armed the Provisional IRA and that there should be an investigation into that and honesty about it so that we can see the whole picture.
	My constituents are sick and tired of a one-sided narrative of revisionism that says that the Provisional IRA were actually quite good and the troops and police were quite bad. That, in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland, is bloody stupid—and I mean literally bloody. It will send a signal to my constituents that people have to push, kick, throw and petrol bomb to get what they want, and not abide by the law. We are trying to tell them all to abide by the law.

David Cameron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about my decision not to hold a further public inquiry. Let me be clear again that that is not because the Government want somehow to hide or run away from the truth. We could not have marched further, faster or more clearly towards the truth than we have by publishing this document today. As for his point about republican terrorism, let me read to him from paragraph 117 of the report’s executive summary, where de Silva states:
	“I have no doubt, however, that PIRA was the single greatest source of violence during this period and that a holistic account of events of the late 1980s in Northern Ireland would reveal the full calculating brutality of that terrorist group.”
	That is the point that he makes and he is right to make it.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues.

BILLS PRESENTED

Multinational Motor Manufacturing Companies (Duty of Care to Former Employees) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.  57 )
	Geraint Davies, supported by Stephen Metcalfe, Mrs Siân C. James, Martin Caton and Mike Freer, presented a Bill to require multinational motor manufacturing companies to provide a duty of care to former employees in respect of pension provision.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 107).

Lords Spiritual Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.  57 )
	Mr Frank Field presented a Bill to make provision for filling vacancies among Lords Spiritual sitting and voting as Lords of Parliament.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 108).

Planning Act 2008 (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Phil Wilson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Planning Act 2008 to exempt planning applications for onshore wind farms producing 50 megawatts or more; to provide that they be referred for decision to local planning authorities; and for connected purposes.
	I am pleased to report that County Durham has played more than its part in the development of renewable energy. The equivalent of 70% of the county’s household electricity comes from renewable sources; what is more, the equivalent of 27% of the county’s energy needs are already supplied from renewable sources, only 3% off the 2020 target of 30%. Some 68% of the renewable energy generated comes from wind energy. In total, 193 MW of renewable energy is either operational or approved, 132 MW from wind. A further 109 MW is in planning, all of it from wind energy. That is one of the best records of any local authority area in England.
	I want to see further renewable energy development in the county, but as far as wind farm development is concerned, I believe the landscape in the county is near or at full capacity. If it is allowed to continue, the cumulative impact on the landscape will become severe. The county now hosts 17 operational wind farms, a further six have been permitted but are not yet operational, and another 13 are in planning. At present, County Durham has 70 commercial-scale turbines and a total of 155 turbines of various sizes. Another 72 turbines of all sizes are in planning, without counting the 24 turbines E.ON would like to build at the Isles in my constituency, which, on a good day, would generate 63.5 MW of electricity.
	It is apparent that my Bill is not born out of any sense of nimbyism, because Durham has done its bit. The county understands the need for a good energy mix and has played its part. Today in Durham, the sheer size of the turbines is starting to place a burden on the landscape that I do not believe was envisaged by the legislators when the policy was devised to ensure that local people, through their planning authority, could not say no to a wind farm proposal if the energy generated exceeded 50 MW. Instead, the decision lies with the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate.
	The Isles wind farm proposed for my constituency exceeds the 50 MW threshold and must therefore be referred to the Planning Inspectorate because it is deemed a nationally significant infrastructure project. The county council will merely be consulted. The national significance of the Isles wind farm is not its physical size but the energy it produces. According to E.ON, on a good day it would produce sufficient energy for towns such as Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield in my constituency. Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield are great places to live, but is a wind farm that can generate sufficient energy for them an infrastructure project that warrants national significance? I think not. For me, Hartlepool nuclear power station, which is about 10 or 12 miles from Sedgefield and generates 1,190 MW of electricity, is an infrastructure project of national significance.
	This is why I believe that onshore wind farms, especially in areas where there are many of them, should be exempt from the 50 MW threshold and that the planning decision on whether they should be built should lie with the local planning authority. If the Isles wind farm gets the go-ahead, local people will be left with a wind farm that covers 12.5 square miles and hosts 24 wind turbines, seven of which will be 126.5 metres high, whereas the other 17 will be 100 metres high. That is in an area that is designated as able to accommodate only four turbines. It would be the largest array of turbines as part of a network of wind farms on the Tees valley plain, including those already operational at Butterwick and the Walkway, as well as those which have received consent at Moor House farm, Lambs Hill and Red Gap farm but have yet to be built.
	The Isles wind farm is not a power generating station of national significance, but it is an imposition on local people. Their views should be listened to and the decision on any approval for such a wind farm should be made locally. But where exactly did the 50 MW threshold come from? The figure is enshrined in the Planning Act 2008, in a spirit of consistency since the same figure was used in the Electricity Act 1989. That Act is now almost a quarter of a century old and wind farm technology has moved on.
	In fact, during the debates on the 1989 Act, wind farms did not take centre stage. The Government wanted to create a new tranche of renewable energy capacity, but hydro was mentioned rather than wind. In 1994, when Durham county council wrote “Renewable energy in County Durham”, the first strategy document of its kind to be prepared by a local authority, the average wind turbine generated 300 to 400 kW and had a tip height of 40 to 50 metres. By 2001, the wind farm at Tow Law in County Durham was furnished with the latest turbines, which generated 750 kW and stood 71 metres high. The technology has moved on apace, but so has the size of the turbines, from 40 to 50 metres at the end of the 1990s to well over 100 metres today. Some of the turbines destined for the Isles will be 126.5 metres high—six times the height of the Angel of the North or almost twice the height of Durham cathedral. Consequently, the Government should look at increasing the 50 MW threshold.
	The threshold is used by utility companies to their advantage because they can design a wind farm to exceed the 50 MW threshold, taking the planning decision out of the hands of local planning authorities. E.ON’s proposal for the Isles is a case in point. Its original proposal was for 10 turbines, but it was withdrawn because it knew that in all likelihood Durham County Council would turn down the application because it was following an Arup report on wind farm landscape impact, which said that the Isles could not take more than four turbines. E.ON withdrew the application, and introduced a new proposal for 45 wind turbines, but has settled on a wind farm of 24 turbines after taking planning restraints into consideration.
	To achieve that, however, E.ON has performed all kinds of contortions. The area allocated for the wind farm is huge, but to avoid conservation areas it is designed to stand in two clusters about 2 km apart, each with its own substation. Looking at the map, people would think there were two distinct wind farms, not one. I have pointed that out to E.ON, which told me
	that as the wind turbines appear within the area designated for the wind farm, it is one wind farm. On that basis, E.ON should draw a red line around the whole of County Durham and have done. E.ON’s approach is cynical and takes for granted the good nature of the people of County Durham.
	Durham has led the way in the pursuit of a cleaner and sustainable environment, and Durham county council is to be congratulated. I am not against wind farms, and accept the need for a strong energy mix. Durham county council and the county have done their bit, and we are proud of it. The possibility of a huge wind farm in an area that has proved that it is not averse to accepting wind farms is a step too far, which is why the threshold figure of 50 MW should be withdrawn for onshore wind farms, or at least increased significantly, as they do not provide infrastructure of national importance when compared with nuclear power stations, for example.
	County Durham’s industrial heritage is one of coal mining. Those days have gone, and the slag heaps that once scarred the landscape have been removed. Yes, a wind turbine is more elegant than the pit heaps I grew up with, but with the pit heaps came thousands of jobs. What we are experiencing in County Durham today is the re-industrialisation of the landscape without the jobs. What we face in County Durham is massive utility companies being cynical in their approach by attempting to impose on the landscape wind farms which are not really of national importance.
	Exempting wind farms from the 50 MW planning threshold, especially in locations where wind farms already dominate and are close to communities, will ensure that other parts of the country, which need to play their part in developing renewable energy, including wind power, are not taken for granted.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Phil Wilson, Pat Glass, Tom Blenkinsop, Grahame M. Morris, Natascha Engel, Angela Smith, Ian Lavery, Mrs Mary Glindon and Mr Richard Bacon present the Bill.
	Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2013, and to be printed (Bill 109).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[12th Allotted Day]

NHS Funding

Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern the letter of 4 December 2012 from the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot CBE, to the Secretary of State for Health concerning public expenditure on health, further notes Mr Dilnot’s statement that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10; and calls on Ministers to reflect this position in their public statements.
	Some people question whether Opposition days ever achieve anything, but not us. Last month, we brought to the House our concern about plans for regional pay in the national health service, which found an echo among Government Members. Within days, the plans of the previous Health Secretary for market-facing pay in the NHS were scuppered in the autumn statement. To some, that was just another day, another U-turn, in the life of this shambolic coalition—no big deal—but to thousands of NHS staff in the south-west facing pay cuts it was a real relief, although we are still waiting for the consortium formally to back down. We will be vigilant until it does so.
	Fresh from that success, we set ourselves a more challenging task in today’s Opposition day debate to bring some much-needed honesty to the public debate on the NHS, particularly on NHS spending. Across the country, people can see the signs of an NHS in increasing distress: cataract operations are restricted; A and E departments and walk-in centres have been closed; hospitals are full to bursting, some struggling for survival; over 7,000 nursing jobs have been lost—[ Interruption. ] Government Members should listen to the facts before they shout out, because this is the reality and the chaos that the previous Secretary of State created on the ground. People can see that with their own eyes, but when they go home and switch on the television they see Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box making complacent boasts about “real-terms increases” that they have given the NHS and saying that everything is fine.

John Glen: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to have integrity and demonstrate honesty in this debate, will he at the outset condemn the Labour party in Wales for the real cuts that everyone knows are being made in the Welsh health service? Will he level with the British people about that, rather than offer this empty political rhetoric that does not deal honestly with what is happening in Wales?

Andy Burnham: We are discussing the hon. Gentleman’s Government today, but let me deal with Wales. His Government have given the Welsh Assembly Government a real-terms £2.1 billion cut. The Welsh Assembly Government have done their best to protect health spending in that context: they have protected the NHS budget in cash terms. May I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that since 2010 there has been no real reduction in front-line staff, particularly nurses, in Wales, which is quite unlike the position under his Government? Before he appears a bit too cocky on these matters he should
	read up on the facts. The Welsh Assembly is doing the best that it can with the awful hand of cards that he and his Government dealt it.
	There is a mismatch between ministerial rhetoric and the reality on the ground in the NHS, and it is in danger of causing confusion. If left unchallenged, it may lead to unfair claims that the problems in the NHS are all down to its staff and have nothing to do with the Government. Today we need a bit of accountability and a bit of honesty. Once and for all, we will nail the myths, spin and sheer misrepresentation of the facts that roll off the Government Benches week after week.

Julian Smith: In North Yorkshire, we have some of the lowest spending per capita in Britain. Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the removal and reduction of health spending on old people and rural areas under his watch?

Andy Burnham: I think that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark, because there was no reduction in health spending on my watch. I left plans for an increase, as I am about to explain. He illustrates the point that I am making: we are getting half-truths, spin and misrepresentation from Government Members on NHS spending. Indeed, we just got some more, and it is about time that we had a bit more accuracy in the House from them.
	The story starts with the 2010 Conservative party manifesto. Let me quote from it:
	“We will increase spending on health in real terms every year”.

Anna Soubry: Absolutely right.

Andy Burnham: Mr Dilnot may be watching; the Minister needs to be careful in what she says.
	That promise was carried into the coalition agreement, which said:
	“We will guarantee”—
	guarantee, mind—
	“that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament”.
	The Secretary of State has stopped nodding; he was nodding earlier. [Interruption.] I will be interested to hear how the Conservatives make those claims stack up, because week after week, Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards have stood at the Dispatch Box and claimed that that is exactly what they have delivered.
	Until recently, this appeared prominently on the Conservative party website:
	“We have increased the NHS budget in real terms in each of the last two years”.
	Then, on 23 October, the Secretary of State said to the House:
	“Real-terms spending on the NHS has increased across the country”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 815.]
	[Interruption.] “It has”, he says again today. Okay, but this is where the story changes, because last week, he received a letter from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot CBE. Let me quote the key sentence, which puts Mr Dilnot and the Secretary of State at odds, if I heard the Secretary of State correctly a moment ago:
	“On the basis of these figures, we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10.”
	[Interruption.] I am coming on to it all. In other words, NHS spending is lower, in real terms, after the first two years of the coalition, than when Labour left office.

Stephen Dorrell: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the next sentence says:
	“Given the small size of the changes and the uncertainties associated with them, it might also be fair to say that real terms expenditure had changed little over this period”?

Andy Burnham: Let me say to the Chair of the Health Committee that today I am challenging the veracity of ministerial statements made at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that as a former Secretary of State with many years’ experience of the House, he will know that when Ministers are at the Dispatch Box, they have to be accurate; they have to say the truth. A moment ago, the Secretary of State for Health said that he and the Conservative party were right to say that NHS spending had increased in real terms. That directly contradicts the letter that the Secretary of State had just been sent. Is it any wonder that the public are losing trust in the Government if that is the kind of arrogant spin that comes from those on the Government Benches, week after week?

Stephen Dorrell: rose —

Andy Burnham: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman once more, but then I will make some progress.

Stephen Dorrell: Is it fair to characterise the letter as saying that
	“real terms expenditure had changed little over this period”?

Andy Burnham: That is what the letter says, but it is a cut; that is what the letter says. The right hon. Gentleman might say that, in the context of the NHS budget, £1.9 billion is not very much, but it is still a change, and it is a cut. He stood for election on a manifesto promising a real-terms increase. He has just acknowledged that there has been a real-terms cut. Does he acknowledge that there has been a real-terms cut? I think he will have to. I am amazed; the Conservatives come here today to try to con the public, yet again, into thinking that they are fulfilling their promise.

Robert Flello: I enjoy every moment in which a blow is landed on the Government; they squirm and try to come back. Will my right hon. Friend comment on how much of the budget is being thrown away and wasted on top-down reorganisation, redundancy payments and everything else that is going on?

Lindsay Hoyle: We need short interventions. There are a lot of Members who wish to speak. I am a little bothered by the comments made; I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) did not want to suggest that the Prime Minister conned people.

Andy Burnham: I am coming to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), because the context is that £1.6 billion, on the Government’s own figures, was spent on the back office, and taken away from the front line. The Chair of the Select Committee says that the cut was a
	little one, as though that is okay—“It’s really an increase, because it’s only a little cut”—but one has to add £1.6 billion to that to see the full extent of the diversion of funds from the NHS front line.
	As the chair of the UK Statistics Authority has established, NHS spending was lower in the first two years of this coalition than when Labour left office. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that it is the same. Let us have some honesty here. Mr Dilnot says that it was a cut; accept what he says, and get on with the job. If the Secretary of State starts being a bit more honest at the Dispatch Box, he might get a bit more respect from the public.
	The Prime Minister has cut the NHS—fact; but just as he airbrushed his poster, he has tried to airbrush the statistics, and he has been found out. To be fair, the Conservatives admitted it and corrected the Tory party website, but the problem is that we have a long list of similarly false claims made in the House that, as of now, stand uncorrected. Today, we invite the Secretary of State to correct the parliamentary record in person.
	I am not surprised to see a few sheepish looks on the Conservative Benches, because we have been checking Conservative Members’ websites, and we found that the hon. Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), and for Hendon (Dr Offord), the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham)—

Anna Soubry: They are sheep, are they?

Andy Burnham: They are certainly sheepish today; they need to get back to their offices pretty sharpish to amend their websites in light of the letter from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority.

Barbara Keeley: The website of the Conservatives in Salford says, on the budget that was going to increase,
	“we would see more investment in our local NHS”
	under a Conservative Government, but in Salford Royal hospital, 750 jobs have been cut. Between them, all our local hospitals have had 3,100 jobs cut in the past couple of years, and two walk-in centres have closed. If the budget is the same, why all these cuts?

Andy Burnham: This is the reality on the ground, as my hon. Friend says. There is also the mental health budget cut. There has been a mismatch; people see all those things, yet they hear the statements from the Government, and it does not make any sense, but now the truth and the facts about our NHS are being told, and things will begin to make sense to people.
	What I find most troubling about all this, and most revealing about the Government’s style and the way that they work, is that even when they are warned by an official watchdog, they just carry on—as they are doing today—as if nothing had happened. When they admitted cutting the NHS in 2011-12 by amending their website, what was the excuse that they offered to Sir Andrew? Labour left plans for a cut; that is what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. It is what the Secretary of State said in a letter replying to Mr Dilnot. Again, that is simply untrue.
	According to Treasury statistics, Labour left plans for a 0.7% real-terms increase in the NHS in 2011-12. From then on, we had a spending settlement giving real-terms protection to the NHS budget. It was this Government who slowed spending in 2010-11, who allowed the resulting £1.9 billion underspend to be swiped back by the Treasury, contrary to the Secretary of State’s promise that all savings would be reinvested, and who still have published plans, issued by Her Majesty’s Treasury, for a further 0.3% cut to the NHS in 2013-14 and 2014-15, contrary to the new statement that the Conservatives have just put on their website. The Secretary of State has a lot of explaining to do.

Andrew Selous: I should be interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the statement by John Appleby, the chief economist of the King’s Fund, who said that before the general election, the former Chancellor left plans for 2011-12 and 2012-13 that would see a cut in real terms. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that?

Andy Burnham: I have not seen the quote, but I did the deal with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer just months before the general election, protecting the NHS in real terms. A deal was done for schools and for the Home Office too. Those were the plans. At the election I was arguing for real-terms protection. The Secretary of State was on the hustings calling for real-terms increases. I said it would be irresponsible, yes, to give real-terms increases over and above real-terms protection because the only way he could pay for that would be taking it off councils, hollowing out the social care budget. That is what I said at the election, but the right hon. Gentleman has not even given real-terms protection. He has cut the NHS in real terms, so it beggars belief that he has the nerve to heckle and shout out from the Front Bench, when he has cut the NHS lower than the plans that I had left in place.

Clive Efford: It is not just on the budget that the Government have let people down. They promised that they would not close accident and emergency departments. Before the general election the former Secretary of State went to Bexley and said he would not close the accident and emergency department at Queen Mary’s, Sidcup, and it closed after the general election. Now they are planning to close the A and E at Lewisham—another broken promise about the NHS. It just goes to show: you can never trust the Tories with the NHS.

Andy Burnham: The two guilty men here have a list of broken promises as long as their arm. The previous Secretary of State toured marginal seats before the election, promising the earth—“Burnley A and E? Oh, we’ll re-open that. Whatever you want. Chase Farm? That won’t close.” It was unbelievable cynical politics. It was all self-serving politics for their own ends and it had nothing to do with the reality in the NHS, but the problem for the present Secretary of State is that he has presented this false version of events to the House. On 13 November he said that
	“there has been a real-terms growth in spending—actual money spent in the NHS, compared with Labour’s plans.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 188.]
	[Interruption.] He says there has been. I ask for your help, Mr Deputy Speaker. How can Ministers deny the facts—deny what the watchdog is telling them? What do
	we do in such circumstances, when they have the sheer nerve and brass neck to carry on making these false statements?
	Based on what we know, there is no way the Secretary of State can back up that claim, and I ask him to withdraw it today. It is an inaccurate claim. He made it at the Dispatch Box; the onus is on him to withdraw it. We know that he is taking time to come to terms with his brief, but he is in danger of developing a credibility problem with his utterances in the House. Take this from last month’s Health questions:
	“Cancer networks are here to stay and their budget has been protected.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 127.]
	But again the truth emerges, and it is somewhat different from the version of events presented to us by the Secretary of State. On Monday, responding to excellent research by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the national cancer director conceded that in future cancer networks would have to live with a smaller budget. What are we to do? Who are we to believe? We have a Secretary of State who is making statements that contradict his national cancer director. It is shameless.

Lucy Powell: Even the north-west regional centre for cancer treatment, the Christie hospital, recently announced that 213 posts will go. I do not know how it stacks up with the Secretary of State’s claim that the NHS budget is going up, when we see cancer patients getting a reduced service at the Christie hospital.

Andy Burnham: The priorities are all wrong. The Government are spending the money on a reorganisation that none of us wanted in the north-west, and as my hon. Friend says, cancer networks are being cut and are shedding staff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West revealed this week, they are cutting back on the vital work that they do—and there could be no more vital work. Yet we continue to have a false version of events given to us. Ministers must think we are daft, but we are telling the facts to the country today and people will judge for themselves.
	When we put the whole picture together, what we see is a tissue of obfuscation and misrepresentation of the real position on NHS spending. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who is, sadly, not in the House today, once made some interesting observations about those on the Government Front Bench, but it is not just that they
	“don’t know the price of pint of milk”.
	The arrogance of which she spoke seems to give them a feeling that they can claim that black is white and expect everyone to believe it. If they say it is so, then it must be so. Well no, actually. The intelligence of the House need not be—

Chris Skidmore: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Has the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) informed the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) that he would be making comments about her in the debate today?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order.

Andy Burnham: Yes, I have done so, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	If in future any Minister mentions the NHS and real-terms increases in the same sentence at the Dispatch Box, Members on all sides will at least have the facts. Better still, by carrying our simple motion this evening, we can give the House the opportunity to make sure that Ministers take much more care than they have previously shown with their statements on NHS spending.
	Let us look to the future. What does all this mean for the NHS and what effect is the Government’s cut to its budget having in the real world? In its briefing for today’s debate, the NHS Confederation refers to a survey of NHS leaders which found that a full 74% described the current financial position as “the worst they had ever experienced” or “very serious”. The reason why the Government’s cuts feel much deeper to people working in the NHS, as we heard a moment ago, is that they are contending with the added effect of a reorganisation that nobody wanted and that they pleaded with the former Secretary of State to stop.
	Cuts and reorganisation are a toxic mix. According to the Government’s own figures, a full £1.6 billion has been diverted away from patient care and the NHS front line and spent on back-office restructuring. Look at the waste already: a full £1 billion spent on managerial redundancies—1,300 six-figure pay-outs and, scandalously, 173 pay-outs over £200,000. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State chunters away. I am surprised he has the nerve even to be here. Such pay-outs are unforgivable and unjustifiable when patients are seeing treatment restricted and nurses laid off in their thousands. But it is not just the financial cost. It is the opportunity cost—the colossal distraction this has proved to be from having the focus where it should be—on the money.
	After the election, the £20 billion Nicholson challenge should have been the only show in town. Instead, no one stood up in Cabinet to the previous Secretary of State, who was allowed to proceed with his vanity reorganisation of the NHS. The consequence has been two years of drift, where no one knows who is making the decisions. The danger of this unwieldy and unmanaged approach to the efficiency drive is that, as trusts start to panic about the future, increasingly drastic cuts are being offered up that could have serious consequences for patient care.
	I want to end by focusing on four such consequences. First, let us look at staffing levels on the NHS front-line. For two years, we have had the mismatch of Ministers making boasts about rising spending while the number of staff was dropping at an alarming rate. A full 7,134 nursing posts have been lost since the coalition came in, with 943 in the past month alone. [Interruption.] Government Members keep mentioning doctors. We left those plans for doctors coming through. The Secretary of State has not done anything about the training of those doctors, but on his watch he has seen more than 7,000 nursing posts cut.
	Training places are being been cut by 4.6% this year, after a 9.4% cut in 2011-12. No wonder the chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing warns that we are “sleepwalking” into a crisis. Peter Carter says:
	“On a daily basis, nurses are telling us they do not have enough staff to deliver good quality care.”
	The situation has taken a serious turn. In its annual report, the Care Quality Commission found that 16% of hospitals in England did not have adequate staffing levels. I am surprised that a warning of this seriousness has not received more attention. It cannot go ignored. It would seem that the NHS is failing to learn the lessons of the failure at Mid Staffordshire, where the first Francis inquiry found inadequate staffing levels to be one of the main reasons why care standards fell so low.
	The Health Secretary tells the Health Service Journal today that he is not going to interfere with the day-to-day running of hospitals, but let me remind him that it is his responsibility to ensure that our hospitals are safe. He must develop an urgent plan to stop the job losses and protect the NHS front line. He should tell us which hospitals do not have enough staff and explain what action he is taking on the CQC’s warning to ensure that all hospitals in England have safe staffing levels.
	The second consequence of Government cuts to the NHS is the growing number of restrictions on treatment. We have revealed how 125 separate treatments have been restricted or stopped altogether since 2010, including cataracts, knee replacement and varicose veins. Just as they make false boasts about increasing NHS spending, so we hear repeated claims about reducing waiting lists. But that is because people cannot get on the waiting list in the first place.
	Figures from the House of Commons Library show the effect of those restrictions on patients. More than 50,000 patients are being denied treatment and kept off NHS waiting lists, and there have been big falls in operations for cataracts, varicose veins and carpal tunnel syndrome. Ministers have promised to stop cost-based rationing if they are given evidence of it, but we have presented them with the evidence on a number of occasions, so let us now see some action.
	Thirdly, the lethal mix of cuts and reorganisation is destabilising our hospitals. They are the first to feel the full effects of the free-market ideology that the Government have unleashed on the NHS. There is no longer one NHS approach in which spending is managed across the system; there is a broken-down, market-based NHS. The Government’s message to England’s hospitals is this: “You’re on your own. There’ll be no bail-outs. Sink or swim. But if it helps, you can devote half your beds to treating private patients.” We see the signs of increasing panic as hospitals struggle to survive in this harsh new world. In Bolton, South Tees, and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells, a large number of staff have been given 90-day redundancy notices, and we see half-baked plans coming forward to reconfigure services with efforts to short-circuit public consultation.
	Will the Secretary of State today remove the immediate threat to Lewisham A and E by stating clearly that it is a straightforward breach of the administration process rules to solve the problems in one trust through the back-door reconfiguration of another? Will he ensure that the future of all A and E provision in Greater Manchester is considered in the round as part of a city-wide review, rather than allowing the A and E at Trafford to be picked off in advance. In St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust, will he reverse the comments of the previous Secretary of State, who told
	the clinical commissioning groups that they had no obligation to honour financial commitments to the hospitals entered into by the previous primary care trusts? It is chaos out there. The Secretary of State urgently needs—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	In fact, all the Health Ministers urgently need to get a grip, not just the Secretary of State.

Robert Flello: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the West Midlands ambulance service only yesterday advised that there are about half a dozen hospitals in the west midlands whose A and E staffing situation is so critical that it is having a knock-on effect on their ambulance turnaround times?

Andy Burnham: I hear reports from ambulance services all over the country that they simply cannot hand over patients at the door of A and E departments and are having to queue outside. Consequently, large swathes of the country are being left without adequate ambulance cover. That is unacceptable, especially as we go into winter and temperatures drop. We need to see some evidence that the Government have a grip on these things. I have been told that large parts of my constituency have occasionally been left without adequate ambulance cover. We must have answers on these matters today.

Sarah Wollaston: I am very disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk down the NHS. As he has just acknowledged, before the election the NHS knew that it was facing an unprecedented efficiency challenge. He will also know that under Labour productivity in the NHS fell continuously. I wonder whether—[ Interruption. ] Okay, but for almost every year—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady needs to ask a sharp and punchy question as an intervention, and very quickly.

Sarah Wollaston: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the NHS’s achievement in making a productivity gain?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady just made another untrue statement. She talks about talking down the NHS, but productivity has not fallen. I am sorry, but let us have some honesty. We are not just going to sit here and take one statement after another—

Lindsay Hoyle: We all know that all Members are very honest in this House.

Andy Burnham: Inadvertent claims are being thrown around the House all the time.
	Fourthly, and finally, cuts and reorganisation are resulting in a crude drive to privatise services, prioritising cost over clinical quality. Across England, deals have been signed to open up 396 community services to open tender under any qualified provider, but those deals are not subject to proper public scrutiny because they are held back under commercial confidentiality. In Greater Manchester, plans are advanced to hand over patient transport services to Arriva, despite the fact that an in-house bid scored higher on quality and despite the fact that the CQC recently found serious shortcomings with the same provider in Leicestershire. The trouble is
	that nobody has asked the people of greater Manchester, or more importantly the patients who rely on that service, whether they want that change.

Lucy Powell: My right hon. Friend might not be aware of another point. The patients who use the Greater Manchester passenger transport service are coming to me regularly and crying their eyes out in distress at this decision—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) says “Aaah”, but those are poor and vulnerable people who rely on that service to take them to and from hospital. It is an absolute disgrace that the contract has been given to Arriva bus service, so don’t patronise them or me. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way.

Andy Burnham: Thank God my hon. Friend got up to deliver that to Government Members, because they need to hear a bit more of it. They say “Aaah,” but we are talking about people who desperately need that service, trust it and like it the way it is. The Government have not even bothered to consult them about the changes they are making. That is what is so wrong.
	“Any qualified provider” is turning into the NHS version of compulsory competitive tendering, a race to the bottom and a rush to go for the cheapest bid, regardless of the effect on patients and services. What clearer symbol could there be of a privatised, cut-price coalition NHS than the decision to award patient transport in Greater Manchester to a bus company?
	Let me remind the Secretary of State of the rights of patients and staff as set out in the NHS constitution:
	“You have the right to be involved, directly or through representatives, in the planning of healthcare services, the development and consideration of proposals for changes in the way those services are provided, and in decisions to be made affecting the operation of those services.”
	If the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) referred to sought to enforce those rights by bringing a legal action against the North West ambulance service, can the Secretary of State confirm that there would be a fair chance that it would have to halt its plans? If so, why does he not just press that pause button and ask people whether they want their ambulance services run by a bus company?
	The first line of the NHS constitution states:
	“The NHS belongs to the people.”
	But it will not when this Government have finished with it. We are losing the NHS, and that is why we will keep stepping up the fight for it. People will remember the personal promises the Prime Minister made on the NHS in order to win office, promises that it now seems had more to do with his desire to detoxify the Tory brand than with any genuine regard for the NHS. He promised no top-down reorganisation of the NHS; that was broken. He promised a moratorium on hospital changes; that was broken. He promised real-terms increases in every year of this Parliament; that was broken. They can now see the chaos that the breaking of those promises is visiting on the NHS: nurse numbers cut, health visitors cut, mental health cut, cancer networks cut, and cataract operations cut. He is the man who cut the NHS, not the deficit. The House cannot vote tonight to stop the damage, but it can put down a marker against an arrogant and incompetent Government who need to show the NHS, its patients and staff a little more respect. I commend the motion to the House.

Jeremy Hunt: We have heard a lot of bluster and nonsense today. At its heart is an extremely uncomfortable truth for the Opposition: this Government are spending more on the NHS than Labour would have spent. That spend has moved away from consultancy and the back office to the front line, so the NHS is now performing better—I know that it is uncomfortable, but it is true—than it ever did under Labour. That means more treatment—[ Interruption. ]This might not be what Opposition Members want to hear, but they might as well listen. That means more treatment, more care and more lives saved. The previous Government talked the talk on the NHS, but it is this Government who have delivered an NHS of which we can be immensely proud.

Grahame Morris: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I will make a little progress before giving way.

Lyn Brown: rose —

Jeremy Hunt: I said that I would make a little progress, if that is all right.
	I must confess to being both surprised and delighted at this afternoon’s motion, because I would have thought that the last thing the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) would have wanted to do was remind the nation of his opposition to our increasing the NHS budget. The motion is about spending, but we can spend only what is in our budget. What did he say about budget and spend during his failed bid for the leadership of his own party? [ Interruption. ] I think that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches should listen to what those on their Front Bench are saying. He said:
	“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.
	So let me ask him to clarify this to the House: does he stand by his comment that it is irresponsible to increase NHS spending?

Andy Burnham: Yes, I do. I said in my speech that the NHS should be protected in real terms at the front line. That is what the Secretary of State has not done. I cannot believe that he is contradicting the contents of the letter from Andrew Dilnot. He really needs to tread very carefully before he goes any further.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me say very gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he can hardly come to this House criticising us for an alleged cut in NHS spending if his own plans would have led not to higher but to lower NHS spending. We are increasing spending by £12.5 billion, and he thinks that that is irresponsible.

Grahame Morris: Will the Secretary of State at least acknowledge that the previous Labour Government increased resources in the NHS from £30 billion when we took office to over £100 billion when we left office in 2010?

Jeremy Hunt: I accept that. We wanted to increase spending even further, and the right hon. Member for Leigh said that that was irresponsible.

Lyn Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm just how many nurses’ jobs have been cut on this Government’s watch?

Jeremy Hunt: I will confirm for the hon. Lady that the nurse-to-bed ratio has gone up so that nurses are spending—[ Interruption. ] Perhaps the Opposition will want to hear about issues of care. The average bed is getting an extra two hours of nursing care per week than under Labour.
	Let me give the right hon. Member for Leigh another chance to clarify Labour policy on health spending. In Wales, Labour has announced plans to cut the NHS budget by 8% in real terms despite an overall settlement protected by Barnett. Given that the motion condemns an alleged cut in NHS spending, will he, once and for all, condemn the choice that Labour made in Wales? If he does not want to do that, let me tell him what the British Medical Association says is happening in Wales. It talks of a “slash and burn” situation and “panic” on the wards. Would he want that to be repeated in England? If not, he should not sit idly by but have the courage to condemn the choice that Labour has made in Wales.
	While we are on the subject of Wales, the right hon. Gentleman will know that NHS patients there are five times less likely to get certain cancer drugs than English NHS patients, but the Labour Welsh Health Minister has said it would be “irresponsible”—the same word that the right hon. Gentleman used—to introduce a cancer drugs fund in Wales. Does the right hon. Member for Leigh support what Labour is doing with regard to cancer drugs in Wales—yes or no?

Andy Burnham: indicated  assent .

Jeremy Hunt: He does support it—well, there we are. So now we have it. Labour policy in Wales is to cut the NHS budget, and that is supported by Labour Front Benchers.

Susan Elan Jones: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether that has anything to do with the cuts in capital spend from Westminster central Government? Does he have any comment to make on National Audit Office figures showing that spending on health in Wales is higher than that in England, or does that not fit with his fictitious version of events?

Jeremy Hunt: I gently remind the hon. Lady that this is about the choice made by the Labour Government in Wales. They had a choice. They could have protected the NHS budget—they had the money under Barnett to do that—but they chose not to do so, and that is supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

Julian Smith: Does it surprise my right hon. Friend that we heard nothing from Labour Members about productivity, innovation or the Derek Wanless report, which demonstrated that Labour’s health spending led to lower productivity rather than better productivity?

Jeremy Hunt: It absolutely did. The key issue in this debate is the level of spending, and we will explain thoroughly why what the Opposition are saying is quite wrong. However, it is also about how the money is spent.

Heidi Alexander: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make a little progress, if I may.
	The right hon. Member for Leigh rather helpfully spelled out the difference between his position and our position when he admitted in the New Statesman that we are spending more than he wanted to spend on the NHS. He said of the NHS budget:
	“They’re not ring-fencing it. They’re increasing it.”
	In respect of NHS spending, he said:
	“Cameron’s been saying it every week in the Commons: ‘Oh, the shadow health secretary wants to spend less on health than us’…it is true, but that’s my point.”
	It was a good point, because we are spending more and he would have spent less. So why on earth call an Alice in Wonderland Opposition day debate condemning levels of spending in the NHS when he has so clearly put it on the record that he wanted that spending to be less?

Graham Stuart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disingenuous, should it be allowed by the Deputy Speaker to say that, of the shadow Secretary of State and Labour Members—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are not going to be disingenuous, are we? We are going to be friends together, and I am sure that a good experienced Member like you, Mr Stuart, could word it better.

Graham Stuart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that correction, which I required. Obviously, it is an inadvertent tendency towards disingenuousness on the subject. I would like to apologise for pointing out, on behalf of patients right across the country, that for the Opposition to have a debate on health funding, when they were proposing to cut it—when they are actually cutting it in Wales—and when productivity fell, is the height of hypocrisy.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think we can have “hypocrisy” either, so we will have the Secretary of State instead.

Jeremy Hunt: The simple truth that Labour Front Benchers cannot understand is that spending is related to budgets, and they wanted the budgets to be lower than they currently are.

Heidi Alexander: The Secretary of State seems to be very keen to ask questions of our Front Benchers. Why will he not answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)? How many nurses have lost their jobs on his watch? I do not want to be told about the nurses-to-beds ratio—answer the question.

Jeremy Hunt: It is because we have protected the NHS budget that the number of clinical staff in the NHS has gone up and not down. [ Interruption. ] Okay, let me explain this, because there is a very important point here. Unlike Labour Front Benchers, I do not want to micro-manage every hospital in the country and tell them exactly how many doctors and how many nurses
	they should have. I want to them to put money on the front line, and the result is that the number of clinical staff—doctors, nurses, midwives and health visitors—has gone up and not down.

Clive Efford: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress.
	Let me move on to the accusation that the right hon. Member for Leigh made. He says that, using 2009-10 as a base year, NHS spending went down in 2010-11.

Charles Walker: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I want to make a little progress and then I will give way.

Charles Walker: I have to chair a Committee shortly.

Jeremy Hunt: In that case, I will give way.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) is not going to walk out after his intervention and will stay a little longer.

Charles Walker: The meeting is in thirteen minutes.
	My right hon. Friend knows that it is not just about funding but about good management. He cannot be responsible for management across the NHS, but in the East of England ambulance service there are question marks over the quality of its senior management. Will he find time to cast his eye over those senior managers?

Jeremy Hunt: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the concerns that he raises, which are frequently raised with me by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has a constituency in the east of England. I follow that situation carefully.
	Let me now deal with the substance of the motion. I have always talked about spending going up from the first year of the comprehensive spending review—the first year when this Government had full control of the budget and were responsible for setting the spending plans. In 2011-12—[ Interruption. ] The shadow Secretary of State should listen to the facts. He tabled the motion, so he probably should hear the answer, although I know it is not what he wants. In 2011-12, spending went up by £2.5 billion in cash terms—0.1% in real terms—on 2010-11. This year, 2012-13, it will go up again, as it will in every year of the Parliament.

Andy Burnham: Would the Secretary of State care to remind the House of the commitment in the coalition agreement? Could he read that out for us?

Jeremy Hunt: I have just said that spending will go up in every year of the Parliament. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these are small real-terms increases, albeit ones that he bitterly opposed. That is why, given the uncertainties around GDP deflators, Andrew Dilnot’s letter says, in the sentence that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to read out, that
	“it might also be fair to say real terms expenditure has changed little over this period.”
	There it is, exposed for all to see: a bogus Labour motion trying to paint a picture of cuts to the NHS budget when even the head of the UK Statistics Authority says that the broad picture of NHS spending is that it has been protected in real terms—something that almost certainly would not have happened had Labour been in power.

Andy Burnham: I am struggling to believe what I am hearing. The Secretary of State is saying that Andrew Dilnot agreed with him that there had been real-terms increases in every year of this Parliament—[ Interruption. ] That is what he just said at the Dispatch Box. Let me quote Andrew Dilnot again, for the sake of accuracy. He said that
	“we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10”.
	How can the Secretary of State square what he has just told the House of Commons with what is in Andrew Dilnot’s letter? Is he saying that Andrew Dilnot is wrong?

Jeremy Hunt: Some politicians walk into the same trap not once but twice. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the sentence that comes straight after that, which he did not want to quote. It says that
	“it might also be fair to say that real-terms expenditure had changed little over this period.”
	That is what Andrew Dilnot is saying, which is why the motion is so completely bogus.

Joan Ruddock: I am no statistician, but my understanding of that English is that things have not changed much. However, the Secretary of State has consistently said that he and the Government have pledged to implement an increase. There is nothing in that letter to suggest that any increase has occurred.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Lady’s party has been saying that spending has been cut, and it had the foolishness to call an Opposition day debate on the basis of a letter from Andrew Dilnot that states that, broadly speaking, spending has remained unchanged. That is why, at its heart, the motion is bogus.
	The sad fact is that this is not the debate that the Opposition planned to have, two years into this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman dreamed of coming to the House to remonstrate about an NHS that was on its knees and that was not delivering for the public. He wanted to argue about waiting times, but they have gone down, with fewer people waiting a long time for an operation than at any time under Labour. He wanted to argue about treatments, but there are more people getting new hips and knees and many other treatments than under Labour. [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members should listen to this. He wanted to argue about cancer, but 23,000 people are now getting drugs under the cancer drugs fund that Labour refused to set up.
	Today, the right hon. Gentleman has tabled a motion criticising the decisions taken by the coalition and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) on NHS spending in our first two years in office. This is also about how we spend the money, as many of my hon. Friends have said. What are the decisions that the right hon. Gentleman is criticising?
	They are precisely the decisions that mean that the NHS is now performing at record levels, and vastly better than at any time under Labour.
	Let us look at those decisions. There was the decision to reduce the number of managers by 7,000 and transfer resources to the front line. There was also the decision to cancel Labour’s disastrous attempt to embrace the technology revolution that cost billions and set the NHS back by years. Then there was the decision to end the wasteful consultancy spend, which has now been cut by 39%. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman needs to listen to this. There was the decision to stop the scandal of unsustainable private finance initiative projects that left the NHS with a £73 billion debt and £1.6 billion-worth of repayments every year. [ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Christmas is coming. Let us show a little bit more Christmas spirit towards each other. Members on both sides of the House want to hear the Secretary of State.

Jeremy Hunt: I could not agree with you more, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to give the House some good news, but it is difficult for the Opposition to take it in.
	There was also the decision, championed by both coalition parties, to transfer that money to the front line, so we now have more clinical staff, including 5,000 more doctors; better access to drugs, including £600 million invested in the cancer drugs fund; 500,000 more elective admissions every year than under Labour; over 3 million more out-patient appointments every year than under Labour; nearly 1 million more going through accident and emergency every year than under Labour; and 1.5 million more diagnostic tests every year than under Labour. On top of all that, we have 60,000 fewer people waiting longer than 18 weeks than under Labour; 90% fewer people waiting more than a year than under Labour; clostridium difficile down more than a third compared with under Labour; MRSA halved compared with under Labour; and the number of people facing the indignity of mixed-sex wards down by 98% compared with under Labour.
	Of course the NHS faces huge challenges with an ageing population and increasing demand, but we are now facing up to those challenges with ambitious plans to tackle dementia, to reduce mortality rates for the big killer diseases to the lowest in Europe, to embrace the technology revolution—but getting it right this time—and to improve the quality of care which, in parts of the system, has been allowed to become shockingly poor for far too long. All those priorities were ignored by Labour in office and, even worse, they have been rejected by Labour today as a “meaningless list”. Those were Labour’s words. Well, tell that to the 157,000 people who die from cancer every year, or the 800,000 people who have dementia, or the people whose families suffer from the poor care that we read about every week in the newspapers.
	None of the improvements to the NHS, and none of the ambitions for our NHS, would be possible without the extraordinary dedication of our doctors, nurses and front-line professionals, to whom I pay tribute today. But none of them would have been possible either if we had not increased the NHS budget and NHS front-line
	spend, contrary to what Labour intended and wanted. Labour’s plans would have meant less spending in real terms on the NHS, and vastly less spending on the NHS front line. No clever fiddling with baselines can obscure the harsh reality that Labour’s policy towards the NHS is a mass of contradictions that fools nobody—certainly not the brilliant doctors, nurses and professionals who have given their lives to saving and improving the lives of others. I urge the House to reject this ridiculous motion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is displayed on the annunciator screen.

Joan Ruddock: Today’s debate centres on the Prime Minister’s broken promise to protect the NHS, which was expressed as a commitment to increase spending on the NHS year on year. That is not the only promise that he made. In opposition, he spoke passionately about retaining essential local services and named my local hospital, Lewisham, as one of the 29 hospitals that he would personally defend. Today we can offer him and the Secretary of State for Health that opportunity. The bottom line for NHS spending has to be the provision of safe, quality health care that meets the needs of the local population and is free at the point of need. Nothing is more important to the vast majority of our people.
	The four tests that the Government have set for any local reorganisation proposals are: that they should have the support of local GPs; that they should have strong public and patient engagement; that they should be backed by sound clinical evidence; and that they should provide support for patient choice. Not one of those criteria has been met by the current proposals for Lewisham hospital by the trust special administrator.

Graham Stuart: The right hon. Lady is speaking movingly about local services. Does she welcome, as I do, the £12.5 billion increase proposed for the NHS budget during this Parliament? Does she disagree with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who believes that such increases are irresponsible?

Joan Ruddock: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will discover that I find it impossible to see the increase. What I see on the ground are cuts, cuts, cuts. That is what I want to speak about today.
	As I was saying, not one of those criteria is met by the trust special administrator’s proposals for Lewisham hospital. The TSA was appointed in July by the Secretary of State for Health to sort out the considerable financial problems of the neighbouring South London Healthcare NHS Trust. His remit required him to find tens of millions of pounds of savings from the services provided by the trust’s hospitals in Woolwich, Farnborough and Sidcup. That could not be done, so the TSA’s response was to grab a successful, solvent and highly regarded hospital, Lewisham, and propose to destroy it to raise money from the sale of two thirds of the site currently occupied by the hospital, a fact that was not even mentioned in the consultation document.

Andy Sawford: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents have similar concerns about the future of their local hospital in Kettering, despite assurances that changes are being driven by the best clinical advice and guidance and by clinical outcomes. Contrary to the unrecognisable picture described by those on the Government Benches, we know that the cuts in Kettering hospital’s services, which will affect my constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire, are a result of a £48 million deficit that is a direct result of the Government’s policies. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that this is about those cuts in funding rather than the clinical outcomes?

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If all hon. Members are honest in providing a record of what is happening on the ground, we will see that the reality is, indeed, cuts and reductions in services.
	It is a case of not only how much money we spend on the NHS, but how wisely we can spend it, and there may be agreement throughout the House on that. [ Interruption. ] I say to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) that just four years ago, Lewisham hospital gained a new wing through a successful and affordable private finance initiative contract. Just two years ago, a state of the art new birthing centre was opened, and only in April of this year the £12 million refurbishment of the A and E department was completed.
	Now, however, the trust special administrator proposes to close both the full A and E service and the full maternity service at Lewisham hospital. The consequence of closing the A and E department and replacing it with an urgent care centre means the closure of the intensive care unit, the coronary care unit and the acute medical and elderly medical services. Every year, more than 13,000 people benefit from those acute services, 4,500 babies are born in the maternity unit, and more than 120,000 people use the A and E department.
	The proposals are, to be frank, catastrophic—they will remove vital services from a growing population of more than 270,000 people. This is an accountant’s solution to a problem that does not even exist in Lewisham itself. Not a single constituent, patient, GP or hospital specialist has come to me in support of the plans.
	My colleagues, Lewisham hospital trust and I are not opposed to change aimed at greater efficiencies and higher standards. Indeed, that was the Labour Government’s policy and philosophy for the NHS all along. We know that closures of small hospitals have led to safer services. We know that paramedic services and blue-light ambulances taking people to highly specialised centres save lives every day. We also know that the NHS could be more efficient, but there is no evidence that the needs of Lewisham people for A and E or maternity services can be safely met elsewhere in south-east London. All other existing provision is full to capacity, and travel from most of Lewisham to Woolwich is highly problematic.
	The TSA report is full of assertions and aspirations that are completely divorced from the realities of people’s lives in a borough that contains some of the most deprived wards in the UK. If the proposals were to go ahead, the 750,000 residents in the boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich and Bromley would be dependent on a single A and E department. As the report says, hospitals are part of a bigger NHS family, which is why the Secretary of State must look at London as a whole. It
	cannot be just or sensible to try to find enormous financial savings to rescue one health trust by destroying another.
	The public have had just 30 days to respond to the extraordinary proposals in what is a deeply flawed consultation process, but such is the anger that more than 32,000 people, including more than 100 local GPs, had added their names to a petition started by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) by the time we presented it to No. 10 last Friday.
	Last week the trust board of Lewisham hospital issued its response. It supports in principle the merger of Lewisham with Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, and I must say that that is worth considering, but the trust says:
	“We are concerned that the financial modelling completed by the TSA team at pace will include errors that will work against financial viability of the proposed Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust and Queen Elizabeth hospital reorganisation.”
	That would simply repeat the history of the hospitals in the South London Healthcare Trust that have had continuing financial problems.
	The trust board goes on to say:
	“The TSA process has made it impossible to have the engagement and involvement that proposals such as these would normally warrant, and our clinicians do not feel they have been listened to in this process.”
	The rest of its submission to the TSA is entirely damning. It says:
	“We do not believe there is a convincing case for the major change of services proposed in Lewisham. The TSA has overlooked the significant role that LHT provides in the broader provision of services to local people. The TSA recommendations will result in worse, rather than better, care for the people of Lewisham. We believe a health and equalities impact assessment would show this but has not yet been completed—a significant weakness of the TSA Report.”
	When the Secretary of State comes to view the TSA’s report, whatever form it takes, I urge him also to review all of the evidence that has been presented by local people, local experts, local consultants, GPs and the hospital trust itself. As the local Save Lewisham Hospital campaign says, this is not a difficult decision for the Government—it is potentially a deadly one. I urge him to give the most careful consideration to what is being said. The criticisms are damning and we have absolutely no faith in the proposals that the TSA will put before him.

Stephen Dorrell: You challenged us earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, to introduce a little Christmas good will to the debate, and I want to try to do that in two ways. First, I want to respond to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who spoke from the perspective of the local constituency and community interest in Lewisham. The challenges that she described repeat themselves many times over in the health care system, and it is those challenges that I want to address.
	Secondly, I want to surprise the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), by welcoming the fact that his motion, although I do not endorse it, refocuses the health debate back on the core challenge facing the health service, and the health and care system more broadly, as it thinks about how we
	meet demand—in truth, there is bipartisan agreement on this—in the more challenging resource environment in which we now live.
	Although we were not able to detect it in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, the fact is that he, as Secretary of State, introduced the changed resource outlook within which the health and care system now operates. It was in May 2009—not on election day in May 2010—that Sir David Nicholson issued his annual report on the challenges facing the national health service. He made it clear that the system has to meet demand against the background of a resource outlook that is not only unrecognisably different from that during the generous funding of the Labour years between 1997 and 2010, but that has fundamentally changed from the one that the NHS has experienced throughout its whole history since 1948.

Andy Burnham: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I had to give the NHS that reality check and set the Nicholson challenge. With that in mind, does he agree that the Nicholson challenge should have been the only show in town after 2010, and that it was catastrophic to combine it with the biggest ever reorganisation that the NHS has ever seen?

Stephen Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I agree that the prime focus of health policy since 2010 should have been on how we can change the way that care is delivered in the health care system and the social care system to ensure that we can meet demand against the very different resource outlook that I have described. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have done many times in this Chamber, that he shares some of the responsibility for the two-year trip down memory lane that we have had. It has been comfortable for the Labour party to say that the Tory party does not believe in the health service. We have been reminded numerous times that Tory MPs—all of whom are now dead and most of whom died before most of the current Members of the House of Commons were born—voted against the establishment of the national health service in 1946. We have had reminders from Government Members that the Labour party voted against the establishment of NHS trusts and then went ahead with the policy in office. The Labour party says that it is against choice and competition, but it was that party that established the choice and competition panel to ensure that those influences were brought to bear in health care policy.
	We have had a two-year trip down memory lane, in which we have engaged in party political arguments that have avoided the issue that the right hon. Gentleman articulated as Secretary of State: how can we meet rising demand for health and care services against the background of a budget that, as the Select Committee has said repeatedly, is flatlining in real terms? That is why I was so keen earlier to read out the sentence from the Dilnot letter that states that it is
	“fair to say that real terms expenditure had changed little over this period.”
	The way that I prefer to put it is that if the decimal points are knocked out, real-terms expenditure is running at zero. The question is how to act against the background of a very small growth in resources, which is what the Government are committed to.
	What the right hon. Gentleman did not cover in his speech is that the revenue expenditure of the NHS, which is what actually treats patients on a day-by-day basis, has grown modestly in real terms since his last year as Secretary of State. In my view, it will continue to grow modestly in real terms. He is frowning, but it is there in the arithmetic that there has been modest real-terms growth in the revenue expenditure, which is another definition of front-line services. That is the expenditure that funds the delivery of services to patients on a day-by-day basis and that is where the pressure is felt.

Lucy Powell: In addition to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, has he considered the chronic pressure that is being put on the NHS, which will get much worse from next April with the cuts to adult social care and the desperate cuts to local government? The conversation that we are having has to take into account what the money has to be spent on. The service will decline dramatically from next April.

Stephen Dorrell: I have made the point more than once that we should look across the traditional divide between the national health service and the social care system towards a health and care system. The only way of responding to the efficiency challenge that the right hon. Member for Leigh was the first Secretary of State to set out—what the Select Committee has described as the Nicholson challenge—is to rethink the way in which services are delivered across the health and social care divide. The National Audit Office, another independent body, has stated that 30% of non-emergency hospital admissions are avoidable—not unnecessary, but avoidable. We need decent community-based services that meet the demand early in the development of the condition to avoid the unnecessary development of acute cases that have to be treated though hospital admission.

Andy Sawford: The right hon. Gentleman has been a vocal advocate for a long-term solution to the issues relating to the integration of health and social care. I have enjoyed engaging with him on those issues in the past. Does he agree that it is incredibly disappointing that we are not making the progress that we should be making in finding consensus on the future of social care funding and, in the short term, on diverting more funding, particularly from NHS underspends, to prevention?

Stephen Dorrell: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the challenge. I was looking forward to him congratulating the Government on taking a step in the right direction, although it is not a total solution, by investing in prevention some of the resources in the health care. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman indicates that it is only a little and that it should be more.
	We need to look across the statutory divide that reflects history, but not the demands of today’s generation of patients. The key thing that we must recognise in the debate about health and care is that we have inherited a system, which all of us have supported through most of its history, that is built on the assumption that the typical patient will be restored to good health. In Bevan’s day, that was true of the typical patient in the health and care system, but it is not true of the typical patient in today’s system. The majority of the resources in today’s health and care system go towards delivering
	care to people who will not be restored to full health. That, not surprisingly, requires a different set of institutions, shaped in a different way from the institutions that we have inherited from history.
	The challenge that faces all of us in this House who care about the health and care system is not to protect the different bits of the system as though they were listed buildings, but to change the system so that it uses today’s technologies to meet the needs of today’s patients. That is the core challenge that faces my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues and, if I may say so, the right hon. Member for Leigh and his shadow ministerial colleagues.

Graham Stuart: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Dorrell: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not.
	For the second half of this Parliament, we could have a reprise of the first half and we could trade party political slogans about a system that increasingly thinks that the political debate has nothing to do with it, or we could engage with the people who understand what real life feels like on the front line of the system, which has been described by one or two Opposition Members, and we could show that we in this House support the need for change in order to use taxpayers’ resources to meet taxpayers’ health and care needs. That is the real challenge that faces the House this evening.

Kevin Barron: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is leaving because, before going on to discuss what is happening in my local health community and local hospital, I want to pick up on a couple of the things that have been said. First, I am pleased that this very dry motion has been tabled because I hope that it will concentrate our minds on what is happening in the national health service and, in particular, to spending.
	The Secretary of State said that spending is related to budgets. He did not respond to the point posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that in 2010-11, there was a £1.9 billion underspend in the national health service budget. No use was made of the budget exchange scheme, so none of that money was moved into the following financial year. We can assume that £1.9 billion went back to the Treasury.
	In the following year, 2011-12, the underspend was £1.4 billion, and £316 million was carried over into 2012-13. An underspend in the region of £3 billion from the first two years of this Government—including the year they won the general election—has gone back to the Treasury. Those are the facts; I do not know if any Front Bench Member wishes to dispute them.

Norman Lamb: Does the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that the average underspend in the last four years of the Labour Government was £1.9 billion?

Kevin Barron: I recognise that there has been underspend, but I take this debate, and the debate we had running up to the general election, a bit more seriously. The chairman of the UK Statistics Authority said that there had been
	an underspend, and what we have just heard is not true. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, the Conservative party manifesto stated:
	“We will increase health spending in real terms every year.”

Graham Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Barron: I will give way in a few minutes. When the Conservative party was in opposition, the current Prime Minister said in 2009:
	“With the Conservatives there will no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
	I want to keep reminding hon. Members of that because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh pointed out, we may be able to take £20 billion out of a budget over four years—that is a big ask and has never been done anywhere in the public or private sector—but to do it while we are also having mass reorganisation is creating chaos in the health service. I will refer to what is happening in my local health service in few minutes.
	In 2007 the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) was shadow Secretary of State for Health, although he has now moved to Leader of the House. He said that the NHS needed
	“no more top-down reorganisations.”
	Indeed, in terms of expenditure the coalition agreement stated:
	“We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms, in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision will have on other departments.”
	It also stated:
	“We will stop the top-down re-organisations of the NHS”
	so we can take that with a pinch of salt as well.

Graham Stuart: rose —

Kevin Barron: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before I move on to what is happening to the NHS in the real world.

Graham Stuart: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) is a former distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee. My right hon. Friend rightly said that spending on the NHS is broadly flat, and that the most important question we should be debating, rather than scoring points over 0.1% of spend, is how to use the money most effectively. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that, and that we must look at the allocation of spend around the country? I represent a rural area and it does not seem as if funds are fairly allocated now.

Kevin Barron: The issue of allocation has been looked at by many Select Committees, including by the Health Committee when I chaired it in the last Parliament. We did not find the level of unfairness that people, particularly those from rural areas, used to say there was. We looked for it but we did not find it.
	Let us look at what is happening in the real world. My local Rotherham hospital foundation trust is not a bad hospital trust in any way and scores quite well in many areas. It received foundation trust status a number of years ago, and when this Government took office, it
	is fair to say that the efficiency factor was there already. On 16 March 2011 the trust announced that more than 60 jobs were to be axed at Rotherham general hospital, and confirmed a potential reduction of 62 posts in medical and surgical areas. Earlier this year on 6 March 2012, the local BBC announced that more than 70 NHS staff were facing the threat of redundancy, and the trust is seeking to save about £4 million. On 26 October 2012, an internal report given to the local media stated that the trust now intends to cut 750 jobs—about 20% of its work force—by 2015.
	The NHS trust said that it needed a smaller hospital with substantially fewer beds and a smaller work force to save £50 million over the next four years. The internal report—aptly named, “Creating Certainty in an Uncertain World”—said that it was necessary to save £50 million from the £220 million budget before 2015 to meet Government targets. That was confirmed by the trust in a press release.
	On 5 November 2012, the chief executive of the trust said that it would show staff the plans and invite them to come back with alternative views on how things might be done differently. The trust stated:
	“We’ve made it very clear that there may have to be redundancies, but to be honest with you until we have gone through the process, I don’t know how many we will be able to lose through natural turnover and how many will have to be made redundant.”
	What type of planning is there in any of this when we have such a situation in a district general hospital on which about 80% of my constituents rely if they have to go into secondary care?
	On 20 November 2012, the chief executive announced his retirement. On 3 December 2012, the hospital announced that staff will be informed about the decision to postpone the formal consultation launch into work force restructuring. It went on:
	“We realise this an anxious time for all members of staff, but it is imperative that we do what is right for the Trust, our staff and our patients. This means that we need to take more time to ensure our workforce proposal is exactly what the Trust requires and we anticipate the launch to take place later in the month.”
	On 7 December 2012—last Friday—a headline in the local newspaper stated that the trust had recently engaged the services of a director of transformation on a time-limited basis. The acting chief executive said:
	“It is important that the trust acts quickly to take the action required to safeguard the future clinical and financial sustainability of the Trust. This appointment, which was made after a competitive process, is required to provide additional expertise and impetus to the changes we need to make, whilst allowing others to remain focused on delivering the healthcare services that the people of Rotherham need and deserve.”
	I do not stand here and support the way the NHS has been structured now or in the past, and I have been critical about many areas of that. I agree with the chief executive of the NHS, David Nicholson, when he said at the NHS confederation conference this year:
	“We need to change the model of care to one which supports patients and focuses more on preventing ill health from happening in the first place...and move away from the default position of getting someone into a hospital bed.”
	At the same conference the then Health Secretary said that closure decisions were not an issue for national politicians, and my right hon. Friend the Member for
	Leigh said that the current Health Secretary said very much the same thing—“It’s nothing to do with me, guv.”
	Let me say to the Minister, and other hon. Members who have made relevant interventions, that if changes and reconfigurations inside the national health service are getting better care to more patients, that is fine. However, the chaos in my local health service is about cutting back and saving money. I have played an active role in health care in my constituency over many years and, as far as I know, there has been no debate with local Members of Parliament, patients, patient groups, local doctors or people engaged in health provision in Rotherham. There have been no discussions whatever about reconfiguring the district general hospital to improve the position of patients and of the people of Rotherham and the surrounding area. Instead there is a drive to save money, which is creating chaos in my local health service.

Norman Lamb: Does that not demonstrate a complete failure at local level to address the real problems that we are trying to grapple with? There is therefore a case for a changed system whereby a health and wellbeing board brings all the parts of the system together to debate such issues.

Kevin Barron: The events of the past two months suggest to me that the people in whom the Minister has faith to reorganise health care in Rotherham do not know what they are doing. They have brought in new systems and produced a report inside the hospital, which I understand was given to the trade unions. It ended up on the front page of a local newspaper and was countered by a press release by the hospital itself. Where is the debate about improving health care for my constituents and others? It is absent.
	I say to the Minister that it was wholly wrong for the previous and current Secretaries of State—he is not the Secretary of State himself, but we never know, he may be one day—to say “These are not matters for Ministers”. I have not been consulted about them. The three local MPs had an appointment with the chief executive of the trust about two weeks ago, but it was cancelled because he had announced his retirement the week before. That is not acceptable.
	The hard reality on the ground is that no matter what we would like to happen in health care, trusts are charging into cutting budgets. They are cutting jobs, because that is where the major expenditure is in health care, and that is creating the chaos that I have described. It is not acceptable. My constituents pay their taxes to pay for health care—it does not come out of the budget down here in Westminster—and they deserve better than what they are getting at the moment.

John Pugh: While you were not in the Chair, Mr Speaker, you missed a lively and interesting but predictably arid debate. We have reached a kind of stalemate. Those who understand the dark art of political messaging tell me that it is important to say the same things again and again, and psychologists tell me that those who do that are more likely to be believed. Prior to the election, the Tories were unique in having as an important part of their messaging the wish to ring-fence and preserve NHS spending.
	That message was then embodied in the coalition agreement and has influenced subsequent spending decisions. We all recognise that there are good reasons for that—the NHS is a demand-led service. It is therefore perfectly sensible, in the Westminster bubble, for the Opposition to make an issue of it. Members have come to the debate with predictable information from the Whips-SpAd axis about the private finance initiative, the misdemeanours of Wales, evidence of unexpected service rationing, reconfiguration trouble, positive and negative variations in waiting lists and ambiguous data on productivity. We have all been given that stuff, and we can use it as we wish.
	Meanwhile, the public have clocked that we have a real problem. The demands and expectations on the NHS will continue to rise, resources are tight and there will potentially be a huge problem. They know that politicians cannot be seen to reduce the NHS offer—they simply would not tolerate that. They do not know quite how all the sums will ultimately stack up, and nor do we. That is the big question.

Andy Sawford: Will the hon. Gentleman accept, though, in the interests of being transparent with the public, last week’s letter from Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority?

Graham Stuart: Move on.

Andy Sawford: The letter stated unequivocally that
	“we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10.”
	Until both Government parties acknowledge that truth, which independent experts have told us about, they will not have any credibility in health debates.

John Pugh: I think I will take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and move on.
	I think we all agree that the only acceptable answer to the problem is to spend public money wisely. Currently, the NHS is holding up—sort of—by making economies and savings, largely off the back of a wage freeze, which is not sustainable. However, I am starting to be alarmed by the disagreement about what else we can do and what strategies we should follow. I will run briefly through the suggested options.
	It has been suggested that we should keep people out of hospital, but we already have fewer hospital beds than almost anywhere else in Europe, and according to the NHS Confederation there is no clear evidence that treating people outside hospital would necessarily be cheaper.
	Some people recommend personalisation and personal budgets, but it can be argued that that would not lead to better use of scarce resources, despite the fact that it would be more popular than some current service configurations. Telehealth has also been suggested, and I am a great enthusiast for it—it is my personal favourite suggestion, and I am chair of the all-party telehealth group. However, although there are cost-effective pilots, the Nuffield Trust has expressed some criticism of telehealth, saying that it may not save us anything like the money that we believe it will. The industry itself is concerned that if the roll-out is not efficient and effective enough, telehealth simply will not take off.

Stephen Dorrell: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I have some sympathy with him, but will he acknowledge that the arguments for those options are partly about health economics but partly related to the need to deliver better quality to those who rely on community-based services? We do not want acute cases if they are avoidable.

John Pugh: I agree; none the less, we both agree that there is still a huge economic problem.
	Even reducing the number of managers has mixed impacts, because asking doctors to manage services or buy in management service from elsewhere has cost implications. It uses up medical time, which needs to be replaced. Then there is the blighted history of IT and the uncertain role of technology and innovation, which can increase demand but also reduce cost. Even if we see public health as the answer, it is still not a complete answer by itself, because if we do not solve the huge problem of dementia, there is no saying that prolonging life and keeping people fit will necessarily reduce overall costs in the long run. If we look at things such as rewarding doctors through the quality and outcomes framework, and so on, we find some pretty expensive deployment of public money, albeit not always to massive effect. The point I am trying to make is that there is a whole medicine chest of remedies available, but no complete agreement on precisely how or where best to use them. None of them seems to be a cure-all, and many have undesired side effects.
	As we choose to use those remedies, they need to be employed with skill, judgment and the benefits of experience, because we are dealing with an almost insurmountable problem. We have to approach the problem—almost like good medicine—using the right remedy, at the right time, in the right way and with skill, judgment and experience. However, that will not result simply from using market forces or creating some sort of ersatz market—that is just another tool we might choose to use. What we want—I am sure the Minister agrees—is integrated services, which would avoid expensive duplication, cost-shunting and piecemeal provision. It would be really nice if we could exploit better economies of scale in procurement, for example, or make better use of the NHS estate. It would be nice if we could discover good practice and roll it out across the piece quickly. It would be really nice if the NHS was a well oiled and efficient machine—a truly integrated system with proper clinical networks that were properly protected. It would be nice if we got what the Minister describes as integration, which is a kind of holy grail at the moment.
	However, I have a problem—I am sure the Minister has a response to it—in that we have just abolished what I think would be the best agency for integration. The strategic health authority, unloved as it was—a bit obese, misunderstood, and so on—was a vehicle that could perform that role, applying the right remedies in the right place. I must own up: we decided in the Lib Dem manifesto that we wanted to get rid of the SHA. However, perhaps over the fullness of time the NHS Commissioning Board will create something like that—quietly, privately—because to some extent, I think we all agree, it is needed. In the meanwhile, there are key things we need to get on with. We can certainly improve procurement without any difficulty. We can try to release ourselves from the pointless grip of the EU working
	time directive, which adds appreciably to salary costs. We can also work hard to move data around the system better. There is an enormous amount to do and it is not obvious who is going to do it.

Ann Clwyd: I am not going to make a speech as such; I am just going to read some quotations from the hundreds and hundreds of personal testimonies that I have received in the last few days.
	“I am a former director of nursing at a university teaching hospital…Since my retirement…there have been four occasions when it was necessary for me to visit family and friends in hospital. Each visit resulted in a serious formal complaint about the standard of nursing care and medical diagnosis, experiences that have caused me to be ashamed of the profession I was once very proud of.
	In the first incident a friend, dying, was left sat in a chair at visiting time with no pyjamas and his genitals exposed. On making inquires we were told that no clean pyjamas were available.
	My mother was in hospital suffering from a bladder infection some weeks after bowel surgery for cancer…When we arrived she wanted to use the toilet, having asked for help several times. We found her being completely ignored so I took her to the toilet myself. On our way there she could not hold the flow of urine, most of which poured onto the floor of the ward. Naturally she felt ashamed, embarrassed and humiliated. At that time, and in full view, not one nurse was attending patients at their bedside and we counted eight nurses and a doctor doing nothing at the nurses station. My family insisted that mother be transferred to another hospital where within two hours she was diagnosed with malnutrition and dehydration—mother had been in the previous hospital for three weeks! Unfortunately the new hospital, a few days later, ran out of colostomy bags and just left mother in a faeces-covered bed.”
	Another statement says:
	“I was trained as a nurse myself when I was young, and subsequently retrained as a Community Worker and then a Social Worker. I worked in community care Social Work for 20 years. I also witnessed many incidents of inhumane treatments in hospital settings whilst working in Community Care…My… father was admitted to hospital due to some long standing serious bowel problems...Not long after being admitted, my father contracted C. difficile, from which he did not recover. He was frequently left lying in his own faeces. His basic care needs were neglected on every level, and he was made to feel guilty every time he soiled the bed. He developed such severe Thrush in his mouth, he was unable to eat or wear his false teeth. Despite numerous requests for treatment, it was never treated. I also tried numerous times to have him transferred to the small local hospital for palliative care as it was obvious to me that he was dying, but the staff insisted that he was NOT terminally ill…In the end, I DID stand in the corridor in desperation and virtually scream. I shouted at the nurse in charge, ‘The treatment of my father is f***ing inhumane’ and demanded that he was moved for palliative care…This happened after I found my dying father lying half out of a chair with freezing cold bare feet and one light blanket in late afternoon. According to other patients he had been sitting there since early morning. (It was easier for nurses to clean him up if he soiled himself in the chair, although they used the excuse of it being good for him.) He died in the small local hospital 3 days later. The staff there said his bed sores were so extensive and severe, there was nothing they could do for him. They kept him comfortable, and thankfully allowed him to finally die with some dignity and tender, loving care. However, by this time, my beloved gentle father had endured 3 months of indignity, abuse and misery.”
	Another testimonial said:
	“Your story was so similar to the loss of my dad exactly 2 years ago in our local hospital…he had worked from the age of 14 until his 65th birthday, he was in the RAF in the war and he was
	treated in the most dreadful way by most of the nursing staff, doctors and administrators at the hospital. We became frightened of pushing them to be kinder whilst he was in their care, in case, if possible, things became even worse. Surely something must be done about this situation. I could hardly believe my ears the other day when a representative of the nursing profession was saying they are pushing for an emphasis on compassion and consideration in nursing—when did this disappear? I would have thought it was part of the human condition to want to care for and help a person or a creature who is suffering.”
	Another letter says:
	“My friend and I have both experienced appalling neglect and abuse to close relatives at the hands of NHS nurses (at completely different hospitals—one in the Midlands and one in Surrey) who received no dignity or care right up to the moment they died…We find it equally sickening when we hear people…describe nurses as ‘Angels’! We also have to endure the continual mythology surrounding Nursing as a profession, e.g. ‘it’s low paid, low morale, poor staffing levels etc.’—when in reality nursing pay scales have increased dramatically over the last decade and it is now a well paid profession compared to many other jobs like hospital porters., and crucially, even if there is genuinely low morale it never excuses such blatant cruelty.”
	Another letter read:
	“When I sat at my husband’s bedside I did wonder…why some of the so called nurses bothered to put on their uniforms. The arrogance and indifference of some left me bewildered. The Ward Sister of the ward my husband had the misfortune to be sent to after the excellent intensive ward did not bother to speak to me for the whole 17 days he was on her ward and I am told that she was so busy running the ward she did not have time to talk to relatives…As a Doctor said in an article in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago since they made nursing a degree course the wrong kind of people are entering the profession and they think they are above the menial tasks that the old fashioned nurses undertook from day one. We do not need a load of snooty nosed pen pushers, we need compassionate nurses who are entering the profession because they care for people not for the salary.”
	Another letter read:
	“My father, who was a GP…had a severe stroke. He went to hospital and they would leave the food in front of him to ‘look at’. He was paralysed and could not use his arms or legs. If we were not there, he would not be fed or given any fluid. Then they didn’t pull the side gates up on the bed and he fell out and broke his femur.”
	Another letter read:
	“I feel that indifference by nursing staff to patients’ suffering and needs is all too common, and those nurses who show kindness and take time with their patients stand out as the exception.”
	Another letter read:
	“I do know how understaffed the nurses were in my mother's ward but I found a dismissive attitude from all levels of medical staff including nurses, consultants, surgeons and ward orderlies. Nobody cared about our mother or took a moment to get to know her. I barely managed to keep my temper, fearful that an angry outburst from me would rebound on my poor mother. Cruelty, indifference and a cavalier attitude to my mother's care marked her final weeks of a long life in which she devoted herself to the care of others.”
	I ask the Secretary of State: what is going wrong?

Stephen McPartland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Let me first pay tribute to the impassioned speech made by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The tales that she told almost left me in tears, and it is hard to imagine how difficult it must have been for her to read so many stories of that kind, given the unfortunate position in
	which her own family have been. I know that there are a number of nurses in the Chamber today, and in my constituency, who would be horrified to hear what happened to those individuals, and to the right hon. Lady’s family. No one would want anyone to be treated in such a manner. I think that her speech illustrated the difficulties involved in arguing about whether 0.1% is an increase or a decrease, and underlined the fact that today’s debate should focus on whether or not we provide good-quality patient care.

Sarah Newton: Will my hon. Friend join me in praising NHS members of staff, including nurses, who are brave enough to come forward and express concern to the senior management of hospitals and in other settings when they see that their colleagues are not putting patient care first and are providing poor-quality care, so that appropriate action can be taken and atrocities such as those about which we have just heard can be prevented?

Stephen McPartland: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend has made an important point about the courage of staff whom many would describe as whistleblowers, and who are getting into a great deal of trouble not only with their management for casting light on what is going on in a particular hospital, but with their colleagues for telling tales.
	I am proud of the NHS, I am very proud of the staff who work in it, and I am proud to have the Lister hospital in my constituency. We have heard much impassioned talk about the NHS throughout the Chamber today. I think it is fantastic that Members on both sides of the House, and all Members individually, do all that they can to improve the NHS and the service with which their constituents are provided on a day-to-day basis. I know how proud I am of the doctors, nurses and clinical staff who save lives every day in my constituency, and I know that the headlines only appear when things go wrong.
	In my constituency there is an organisation called POhWER that provides an advocacy service to some of the most vulnerable individuals who are having difficulties with the NHS. It now has contracts for London, the south-east, the midlands and the east of England. It was created many years ago by a group of service users who were severely disabled and had difficulties daily in interacting with their NHS and other services. They created this charity and are its trustees. It has helped hundreds of thousands of people. It launched a telephone service in the middle of last year, and it has already received 30,000 telephone calls. I had the great pleasure yesterday of taking those involved to see the Minister with responsibility for charities, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), to demonstrate some of the work they are doing.
	Every Member, irrespective of party, wants their NHS to be the best it can be and to provide the best possible care to their constituents. We can all make political points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) referred to the fact that the Whips on both sides put out lots of statements for us to use to attack each other. We could argue that spending in the health service in Wales is going down by 8% under the Labour Administration there, but I do not want to put that case.
	Instead, I want to say how much I respect the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). It was refreshing to hear him say he felt he did all he could in terms of NHS spending given the constraints of the budget he had. I do not want to cast political aspersions, because I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he wanted to improve the NHS every bit as much as our Secretary of State and Ministers want to do so. I dearly wish the NHS was not a political football and we did not bandy about figures and information.
	A great deal has been said about the first and second part of a sentence in a letter from Mr Dilnot. I have read the letter. I imagine most people would not really care about whether 0.1% less or more money was going into the NHS. They are interested in the fact that £12.5 billion extra is going in over this Parliament. The Health Committee Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), made a powerful and eloquent speech—it was far more eloquent than mine. He explained that revenue expenditure has been growing modestly over the past couple of years, and that is the expenditure that the day-to-day care delivered to patients in the NHS comes from.

Nigel Adams: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is discrimination against certain parts of the country, such as rural constituencies, including mine in North Yorkshire? As my constituency is rural and has a lot of elderly residents, we do not seem to get our fair share from the funding formula.

Stephen McPartland: I do not represent a rural constituency, but I think everybody in every part of the country should have access to the best possible heath service and there should not be any postcode rationing issues. My hon. Friend’s constituents should have access to the best NHS care; indeed, I hope it is almost as good as the care my constituents get.
	NHS spending should be focused on improving the quality of care and the experience of patients and their families. We all know that things go wrong, and one of the problems is that when things go wrong, doors get closed and people feel very vulnerable and lonely. People put their mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter in the hands of someone whom they consider a professional, and they place their trust in them. I hope all of us feel able to put our trust in those professionals.

Gloria De Piero: In Ashfield, there are proposals to close down wards at the community hospital. If the closure goes ahead, the situation will be particularly difficult for some patients who suffer from severe dementia, as their relatives will have to travel 17 miles to see them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unacceptable?

Stephen McPartland: I understand that the hon. Lady has a specific issue in her constituency, and I would like to point out one in mine: anyone in my constituency who requires radiotherapy treatment has to travel to Hillingdon in London to have access to the linear accelerators, with the typical journey being more than 4,000 miles during the course of the treatment. I do not want to blame any particular Government or party, but the reality is that there are difficulties everywhere. I have a campaign, which I would love all hon. Members to join, to bring cancer care closer to people’s homes, and I want to have a radiotherapy unit based in my
	constituency. There are discrepancies and disparities all over the country, and it would be great if we could iron them out.

Grahame Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a good use, not only in Stevenage, but across the country, of some of the underspend that has been mentioned by hon. Members from across the House would be to buy advanced forms of radiotherapy equipment?

Stephen McPartland: That would be fantastic use of the money, but Hillingdon already has eight linear accelerators and a cyber knife, which reduces the course of someone’s treatment from about 25 visits to eight. The key for my constituents is that the people accessing that service are generally elderly and they would have to access it by public transport, which they find very difficult, so they rely on friends and family. I want that treatment to be brought closer to their home, which goes back to my point about the patient’s experience.
	Earlier in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker called for a little bit of Christmas cheer, so I have great pleasure in being able to announce that earlier this morning, when it was minus 6°, I was outside my local hospital having my photograph taken and the Government were announcing £72 million of funding for infrastructure in the Lister hospital—the money is part of an ongoing investment programme worth more than £150 million. That is the third of 11 projects. We are having a huge accident and emergency department rebuilt, and a lot of people are going to be accessing it; and we are having new ward blocks, theatres and endoscopy units. A huge range of services are coming to the Lister hospital in Stevenage; it is fast becoming a centre of clinical excellence. I know that many hon. Members think I am quite lucky, and I am very proud and happy about what is happening.
	That investment highlights one of the issues I want to raise. When we have these debates, we often find that the passions of hon. Members on both sides about small amounts and figures can create a sense of fear in the NHS that services are being delivered poorly day to day. In my constituency, for the past two years, construction has been going on and new services have been coming to my local hospital, with a range of users able to access them. That building will go on until 2014 to early 2015, and it is what we are calling phase 4. I refer to my radiotherapy campaign as phase 5—people are not aware of that, but we are keen to access the money for it. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) suggested using the £1.6 billion underspend, and it will now be my target for where we get the funding.
	In my constituency, the NHS is daily delivering better and better care; a legion of doctors, nurses and clinical staff, backed up by great administration staff, are providing a fantastic level of service and improving the NHS. I am proud of the NHS and of the staff in my constituency who work in the NHS, and I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to have this debate.

Heidi Alexander: It is a pleasure to follow the measured and thoughtful speech that the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has
	just given. May I also put on the record my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the vital work she is doing, at what must be an incredibly difficult time for her, on putting the importance of care and compassion back at the heart of our NHS?
	I wish to focus on the current threats to NHS services in south-east London. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) has already spoken about the threats to Lewisham hospital and the plans on the table, and I am going to treat the House to my own concerns about that matter. We are rightly debating national expenditure levels on the NHS today, but the harsh reality in Lewisham is that my constituents are confronted with the fact that their local accident and emergency and maternity departments may have to close in order to deal with financial pressures elsewhere in the NHS.
	The Government can claim all they like that they are investing in the health service, but it does not feel that way in Lewisham. Last Friday, along with local doctors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), I presented a petition against the closure of Lewisham’s A and E and maternity departments to No. 10 Downing street. As has been said already, in five weeks the petition has been signed by more than 32,000 people. The proposed changes at Lewisham hospital are not only unwanted, but arguably unsafe and unjustified.
	Lewisham is a busy hospital. More than 120,000 people visit the A and E each year and last year more than 4,000 babies were born there. Lewisham is a place where average life expectancies for both men and women are below national averages. Sadly, it is a place where sometimes, admittedly infrequently, a stab victim will walk into the A and E from the streets and a place where many teenage girls will give birth to their babies.
	The A and E and maternity departments at Lewisham hospital are a matter of life and death for many of my constituents. I am therefore not surprised that more than 32,000 people signed the petition to keep a full A and E and full maternity service there; I am also not surprised that more than 100 local GPs, including the chair of the new clinical commissioning group and the head of every single clinical group at the hospital, have written to the Prime Minister to express their concern about the proposals.
	The question for the Minister today is: will the Government listen? Will the special administrator to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, a man appointed to sort out financial problems in neighbouring hospitals, think again about his plans for Lewisham when he draws up his final recommendations to the Secretary of State for Health?
	I do not think that anyone can be under any illusion about the degree of local opposition to closing the A and E and maternity departments at Lewisham. I recognise that trying to balance the books at the South London Healthcare NHS Trust is a hard job, but asking a hospital that is not even part of the trust to pay such a heavy price seems patently unfair.
	The plans for Lewisham are based on inaccurate data and flawed assumptions. The size and nature of the caseload at Lewisham’s A and E have been misunderstood.
	The estimated additional journey times to neighbouring hospitals have been woefully underestimated, yet the speed with which it will be possible to reduce the need for hospital care seems to be hopelessly optimistic and based more on wishful thinking than on hard fact.
	Those are not the only problems with the proposals. I also cannot see how the current plans make financial sense. In the past week, we have had—even though the Government dispute this—independent verification that there has been a real terms reduction in spending on the NHS in the past few years. Surely it then becomes all the more important that every pound spent is spent wisely and well. How can it be wise to sell off more than half the Lewisham site for £17 million only to have to reinvest £55 million in reconfiguring the remaining buildings on that site to do different types of work? Why sell off the existing buildings, only to shell out money at other hospitals to increase capacity to enable other parts of the NHS to do the work that Lewisham is already doing very well?
	The 4,000 babies who are born to Lewisham mothers every year will have to be born somewhere. Where? There is no free capacity in the system at the moment, so that will require investment. Where are the people who use Lewisham’s A and E going to go? We have all seen the reports of more and more ambulances queuing outside hospitals, with patients waiting to be taken into A and E but being kept in the ambulance because of a lack of space.
	It is asserted that in Lewisham, if the proposal to close the A and E went ahead, only one in four people would have to go to other A and Es, while the other 77% would still be treated in the urgent care centre that would remain. That figure is fanciful. The emergency doctors at the hospital say to me, based on their analysis of patient numbers and the nature of the work that they do, that just 30% of people could still be treated at the urgent care centre.
	I accept that the NHS cannot be preserved in aspic and I understand that it must change to meet the demands and challenges of the 21st century. However, those changes must be driven by patients’ health needs, not an accountant’s bottom line. That is not what is happening.

Nick de Bois: The hon. Lady may be aware that we have had a long fight against the downgrading of my hospital, Chase Farm. Many people think that that fight is over, but I do not. With the new demographic figures and population increases in London, it is important that we continue to press authorities and Ministers to take these things into account, even at this late stage, because where people go is even more of a priority than she assessed it was before the figures came out.

Heidi Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is completely right. Lewisham’s population is growing, and has increased by 10% in the past 10 years. All the indicators suggest that London’s population will continue to grow. It is a diverse population with varied health needs, so it is imperative that people in our capital city can access high-quality services close to home.
	In conclusion, before the election, the Prime Minister told us that he would cut the deficit and not the NHS. In 2007, he promised a bare-knuckle fight over the
	future of services at Lewisham hospital. How times have changed. He has broken his promises on NHS spending and he has broken his promises about Lewisham hospital. If anyone needs proof that the Government cannot to be trusted with the NHS, they need look no further.

Andy Sawford: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in a debate that is incredibly important to my constituents. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for opening the debate. He is aware of my grave concerns about the future of hospital services that serve people in Corby and east Northamptonshire.
	It has long been the ambition of people in Corby—a large, important town that is growing—to have their own hospital. I hope that in future we can realise that ambition. For a long time, however—and for the foreseeable future—we will be served by Kettering general hospital for most of our hospital needs. At Kettering general hospital there are 650 beds and more than 3,000 staff. The hospital is more than 115 years old, and received massive investment, including under the Labour Government. I make that point not so much politically point but as a local person who remembers driving down Hospital hill in Kettering and seeing the fundraising barometer outside the hospital and wondering why we relied on car-boot sales to fund vital hospital services.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, a former Health Secretary, and his predecessors began to put that right, and there was huge investment. Kettering general hospital now has 17 operating theatres and an obstetrics unit that delivers more than 3,500 babies a year. It has something that serves only a few of my constituents but is incredibly important to all of us—a neonatal intensive care unit, or special care baby unit. My own family has had cause to be grateful to that unit and its brilliant staff.
	Kettering general hospital offers a 24-hour accident and emergency service, with level 2 trauma services, which sees more than 2,000 trauma patients a year. There are concerns, however, and I have agreed with the hospital and local people to champion certain issues in the House as the local Member of Parliament, including per capita funding of Kettering general hospital, which we believe is inadequate and lower than average compared with other areas. With a growing population and growing health needs, that must be addressed.
	Recently, a report on the hospital by Monitor raised serious concerns, particularly about accident and emergency. I have met the hospital chief executive and the chair of the trust to discuss those concerns, and to assure them that I will seek to do whatever I can, including making sure that a case for adequate funding for the hospital is made, so that those concerns are addressed.
	The big issue that causes us all concern locally is a major review of health services—the kind of review that other Members have experienced in their areas. In Kettering, the Healthier Together review of five hospitals has already cost more than £2 million; that was the figure in the summer, and I have no doubt that it is rising rapidly. The review has also taken a great deal of time and effort. In early September, together with local nurses and others, I met the people leading that review,
	as a public member of the trust, and I was incredibly worried about what I heard, both as a user of the services, and as a representative of local people.
	The Healthier Together team gave us a pledge card telling us about their plans and giving us some assurances. The context was also set. We were told that the review was driven by a desire for the best clinical outcomes, by expertise, and by research on how local people could be provided with the best health care. We were told that there were considerations to do with more services being provided in the community, and a shift to prevention, which are things I recognise it is important for our local hospital and its partners—the clinical commissioning group and the other hospitals—to consider.
	It was slide 2 that really got to the heart of the problem. It told us that the five hospitals face a combined funding gap of £48 million, and that my local hospital, Kettering general hospital, faces a future funding gap of £6 million a year. I have no doubt that the comments that Andrew Dilnot recently made about the real-terms reduction in funding are very much connected to that, but I do not want to make that wider political point again; it has already been made eloquently by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. I simply say that all local people recognise that resources are getting tighter and tighter at the hospital.

Norman Lamb: Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that in many local health economies, private finance initiatives are causing a massive strain on resources?

Andy Sawford: I want to keep my remarks to Kettering general hospital, and I do not think that PFI is the issue there.

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Healthier Together programme; it is clear that many of the hospitals in that programme have very high PFI debts. We will get the figures for him, to clarify that, in the closing remarks.

Andy Sawford: A few weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he had no intention of misleading the House—talked about the funding issues at Kettering general hospital being driven by PFI deals in Anglian hospitals, which are not really part of the group that I am talking about.

Daniel Poulter: rose —

Andy Sawford: I will not give way; I want to make important points for my constituents. It is important that these things are put on record, so I shall not be giving way to the hon. Gentleman again. He has not done a great service to people in my constituency in the way that he has addressed these issues.

Andy Slaughter: I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency earlier this year, and I am sorry to hear about Kettering. Both the accident and emergency departments and one 500-bed hospital in my constituency are due to close. Neither of those A and E departments is PFI, and none of the four A and Es closing in west London is PFI, so is that point not a complete red herring?

Andy Sawford: I have had some experience of my hon. Friend in the past, and as ever, he talks a great deal of sense. Certainly, in Kettering, we are looking at something driven by funding cuts.
	I want to address the issues, because I seek real answers from the Front Benchers, and real assurances about the future of my local hospital. Healthier Together has assured us that no hospitals in the group of five of which Kettering is part will close. I have never heard any claims that those hospitals will close. The local media have been very clear that they are not aware of any assertions that Kettering hospital will close. There has, at times, been the presentation of an Aunt Sally by some of my political opponents, who have sought to say, “The hospital won’t close, so there’s nothing to worry about.”
	Let us be clear what is being talked about. The Healthier Together review had six different models, and it has refined that to two options. The status quo is very clearly not an option, and it is not consulting on it. One of the two options would see five hospitals going into three for some of the services, though all the hospitals would remain open and provide some services. The services that are at real risk in two of the five hospitals include in-patient paediatrics. Last year I took my son, who had pneumonia, late at night to the Dolphin ward at Kettering general hospital. It concerns me deeply that paediatrics might not be there. I would have had to go elsewhere, and so will local people in the future if the paediatric ward goes.
	Under the proposals, obstetrics would go at two of the five hospitals and be replaced by a midwife-led unit. People in Corby have experience of a midwife-led unit. At one time there was a births in the community facility in Corby, as there still is in some other smaller midwife-led hospitals around the country. Where those exist, if local people want them to continue, they should have that opportunity, but we have a full maternity service in my area and people are very concerned that that could be lost under the proposals.
	I have talked to midwives who tell me that during labour it would not be possible to give an epidural, for example, if the labour became more painful for the mother. Among my family and friends, I have heard about people who hoped their children would be born at Melton hospital, which is a midwife-led unit, describing the worst hour of their life as following a blue light on an ambulance taking their wife and hoped-for child across to Leicester royal infirmary or another available hospital so that the care that was needed could be given. We want our proper obstetrics-led unit to remain and we do not want it downgraded to a midwife-led unit.
	At two of the five hospitals, trauma services would be lost. I have already described how Kettering general hospital provides level 2 trauma and treats more than 2,000 trauma patients a year.
	As to where we go from here, it is important for Healthier Together and the Government to be honest about the proposals. It is important for geography to be recognised as a critical factor. Healthier Together will talk about the clinical evidence and the clinical drivers, but it must recognise that local people are very concerned that Luton and Dunstable hospital is 50 miles away, and that the nearest hospital in the group is 45 minutes away from Corby at Northampton along a very busy road.
	The journey takes 45 minutes at the best of times; the road is seriously in need of upgrading and improving. People are really concerned about the geography, and that has to be balanced with specialisms which people understand. There are already specialisms in our local health care system at other hospitals.
	I am pleased that despite the empty assurances from Government Front Benchers, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) had the courage to raise these issues on 9 November—notwithstanding the by-election inconvenience for Government Front Benchers. I now look to work with him as we seek real assurances from the Healthier Together team and from the hospital that they will not proceed with the proposals if they mean that we will lose all those vital services for my constituents.

Julie Hilling: I am confused: the Government continue to state that they are increasing health spending in real terms; the UK Statistics Authority says that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than in 2009-10; the Government say that that is not true and that they are still spending more. Of course, they have wasted millions on their top-down reorganisation, which has seen the biggest shake-up of the NHS since its inception.
	However, the people of Bolton West are pretty clear in their beliefs. Their local health services are being cut. They know that their local hospital has faced 5% cuts each year since 2010, and they know that it has been told to save £50 million over the next three years—a sixth of its budget. They see no growth, only cuts. We all know that the Royal Bolton is in a mess. Some of that is of its own making; contracts were signed that repaid less money than the cost of treatment that the hospital is outlaying, and it has faced fines for missing targets, such as £4 million for missing its clostridium difficile target.
	That seems utterly mad to me. On the one hand the Government say, “Your treatment was inadequate.” On the other hand, they take a fine of £4 million from the hospital, taking that money from the health care of my constituents, which must make that treatment more inadequate. The Royal Bolton has a new leadership in place and I am confident that it will turn around financial and clinical control in the hospital, but faced with £50 million-worth of cuts, services will have to be reduced.
	Already, 7% of patients are having to wait longer than 18 weeks for treatment, and more and more people are having to wait longer than four hours in accident and emergency—and of course that will lead to more fines, which seems nonsense to me. Royal Bolton hospital will have to shed between 300 and 500 jobs. Of the positions at risk, 146 are for nurses, midwives and health care assistants, 20 are medical and dental, 93 are for technicians, scientists and clinical support staff, 193 are for non-clinical staff and 45 are in estate facilities.
	The Government parties would like us to believe that hundreds of public sector workers are sitting around and doing nothing, but the hard-working nurses, porters, cleaners and—yes—administrative staff across the NHS utterly disagree. If the Government cut a job, they cut
	the work that that person was doing, so there must be a reduced service. My constituent, Colin, was admitted to Royal Bolton hospital for four nights with a strangulated hernia. He told me that only one nurse was on duty for the entire ward for the 12-hour shift from 7 pm to 7 am, and she often had to leave the ward to help a colleague in a similar position on an adjoining ward. Owing to staffing levels, patients were woken in the middle of the night for their medication and blood tests. Colin was full of praise for the hospital staff, who were determined to do their best and apologised profusely for having to wake patients. He told me that he feels that their dedication and commitment is being seriously compromised by Government cuts.
	It just does not make any sense to me. The Government are adamant that they are spending more on the NHS, but every Opposition Member looking at local provision sees cuts, so where is the supposed increase in spending going? It is certainly not going to Bolton or Wigan, and it does not seem to be going to any of the areas represented by Labour MPs, but I cannot believe that the Government would be so cynical as to put money into the more affluent areas represented by Tory MPs. Who should we believe? Should we believe Dilnot, the Secretary of State or the shadow Secretary of State, or should we believe our own eyes, which tell us that our local hospitals are undergoing cuts? The 99-year-old man who waited for 75 minutes for an ambulance while bleeding on a cold pavement and the 69-year-old woman who waited for more than an hour while lying in a park with a broken shoulder think that it is the cuts in health services that affected their treatment.
	Now, of course, we face the challenge of Healthier Together. NHS Greater Manchester’s review of the area’s health care programme is likely to see the closure of a number of A and E departments across the conurbation. None of us would argue against changes made on the basis of clinical need. Indeed, Bolton has a super neonatal unit, which provides enormous expertise for extremely premature babies across Greater Manchester, and Hope hospital is our neurology and stroke centre. However, I cannot accept changes and closures that are based simply on saving money. For me, it is not about the blue-light service to accident and emergency, because we know that they can travel incredible distances in an incredibly short amount of time; it is about people with broken legs and illnesses who need to get themselves to an A and E and need their families and friends around them.
	Due to the time limit, I will not talk about the funding difficulties for public health and care services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) talked movingly about what is happening in hospitals, and Members will know about some of the issues that have affected my family directly. However, I will say that the NHS is in crisis, and it does not help when the Secretary of State says that there is no problem and that funding is increasing, because on the ground we see cuts and patients waiting longer. We see patients being neglected and not being fed, and we see an increase in trolley waits and ambulances not in service because they are queuing outside A and E departments. Let us have honesty in this debate. Whatever the figures say, needs are not being met. Action is needed, not rhetoric. Our constituents are at risk. They need the Government to act.

Grahame Morris: I rise to speak in favour of the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. The Deputy Speaker suggested that we might introduce a bit of Christmas cheer into the proceedings, and the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) certainly painted a very rosy picture of investment in his constituency. I thought he made a very good speech, incidentally.
	In case Ministers are making their Christmas lists, let me tell them that one of the first things that this Government did was cancel a new hospital that served part of my constituency in order to save £464 million. Restoring that funding might be a good use for some of the £3 billion underspend. It was not a private finance initiative scheme but a scheme that was approved by the Department of Health and the Treasury but stopped in the emergency Budget.
	I want to concentrate on two specific issues that are directly linked to the motion and on the important question of trust in the Government’s pledge on the funding of our NHS. I believe that the Government are keeping the public in the dark about a range of issues relating to publicly funded contracts delivered by private sector organisations, including on cancer care.
	On trust, none other than the Prime Minister broke yet another pre-election promise. Having said before the election that he would extend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to all publicly funded organisations, he did not do so. As a result, the public cannot access information about private sector providers in the NHS. This does not apply just to the NHS. In his comments, the Prime Minister referred to other publicly funded organisations such as the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust, the Local Government Association, and traffic penalty tribunals. It is increasingly apparent that many of the large corporations that apparently enjoy cosy relations with this Tory-led Government are extremely anxious that the Prime Minister does not extend the Freedom of Information Act to them. Currently, it instead allows them to hide behind a cloak of commercial confidentiality as billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are awarded to them in barely transparent contracts. The public are deliberately being kept in the dark, and I have no doubt that an expensive lobbying campaign is under way to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Tory party do not change their minds on this issue.
	Meanwhile, private companies benefit by gaining intimate knowledge of public sector bodies through their own submissions of freedom of information requests. That information is then used to undercut or outbid the very same public sector bodies when contracts are tendered or put up for renewal. Members might ask what the relevance of this is in the NHS context, but as someone who worked in the NHS, who is passionate about it, and who has tremendous admiration for the people who deliver the service, I can say that it is a huge concern to me. The area that I worked in—the pathology service that carries out diagnostic tests—is under threat. This huge uncertainty continues, and we need to know precisely what the position is.
	Virgin Care, Circle, Serco, Care UK and any other private sector companies awarded a public contract to provide hospital, community or even specialist diagnostic cancer services are not subject to the FOI Act. We have no idea how these companies went about winning those
	lucrative, taxpayer-funded contracts. Under current arrangements, the best that may be hoped for in terms of any rudimentary accountability is achieved through a Commons Select Committee inquiry of the type conducted by the Public Accounts Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge). However worthy this process, it is by its very nature very limited in scope, and such inquiries can only ever touch the tip of the iceberg.
	This is a national scandal that has prompted me to table early-day motion 773, which has attracted quite a wide range of support, mostly from Labour Members. It calls for the FOI Act to be extended to private sector bidders for public service contracts, particularly in organisations such as the NHS.
	My concern is that this has overtones of the Government’s response to Leveson, in so far as I do not believe that the Government want their corporate friends to be accountable to Parliament, even though our public services are being awarded to those companies in ever greater numbers. We should follow the public pound and ensure that we know who is getting it, and how and why they are spending it.
	The Secretary of State has said that there will be no large expenditure projects that are not fully thought out and properly costed. That brings me to my second point. Responses to FOI requests from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) have made it clear that the Secretary of State is presiding over cuts to essential cancer networks, yet we know that he is planning to spend £250 million of taxpayers’ money on two proton machines, even though, according to the Department of Health’s own report, there is little evidence that they provide any benefit. There are no clinical trial data and no randomised control trials, which are the gold standard by which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence judges the effectiveness of clinical therapies. Indeed, the new chair designate of NICE appeared before the Health Select Committee earlier this week and said exactly that.
	The economic justification for purchasing those two machines has been based on informal discussions with the manufacturers who make them. If the machines are to be viable for the two hospitals that are to have them, they will need to treat 1,350 patients a year at a cost of £40,000 per patient. However, according to the Department of Health’s own dataset, the highest number of patients ever treated with proton therapy in one year is 79.
	I would like to draw the House’s attention to the situation in Germany, which has invested more than most in proton therapy. Today, two of the three proton machines in that country are being mothballed. In Kiel, €250 million was spent last year on a machine, but it is now being dismantled and put into storage because of a lack of demand.

Ian Lavery: Can my hon. Friend explain to the House what a proton machine actually is?

Grahame Morris: Probably not, in the very limited time available, but I can tell my hon. Friend that proton therapy is a form of advanced cancer treatment.
	My argument is that the money the Department is proposing to spend on those incredibly expensive machines would be far better spent on advanced radiotherapy
	machines such as the stereotactic body radiation therapy machines that the hon. Member for Stevenage mentioned. There are other forms of therapy that are far more cost- effective. I might add that we in the northern region have no access to such therapies. Indeed, whole regions of the country do not.
	The one remaining proton machine in Germany is at the university of Heidelberg, and it treats a maximum of 1,200 patients each year. The German Radio-oncology Society has said—[ Interruption. ] I hope that the Minister will listen to this. The society has said that
	“for the vast majority of cancers there is no proof that proton therapy is more beneficial than other forms of innovative radiotherapy that are one hundred times less expensive”.
	This proton debacle highlights the perversity with which the Government are running the NHS budget, and these questions lie at the very heart of whether we can trust Conservative promises on the NHS.
	The Prime Minister tells the public that by April next year every cancer patient who needs innovative radiotherapy will get it, while at the same time the Secretary of State for Health starves dozens of hospitals and cancer networks of vital money needed to buy innovative radiotherapy equipment. We now know that money is being redirected into those two highly dubious projects. The Secretary of State needs to cancel those projects now and redirect the money into radiotherapy machines that will help tens of thousands of people in my constituency and across the country. This has the potential to be a monumental scandal and a waste of public money. I urge hon. Members who share my concern to sign early-day motion 773, to lobby the Health Secretary and ask him to reconsider his spending priorities in relation to cancer therapies, and to support the motion on the Order Paper.

Nigel Evans: I call Jim Shannon. I am not putting the clock on him, but he must resume his seat by 4.44 pm.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that I will finish in time.
	We are well aware of the pressures in every area to implement Government cuts and how difficult it is to do that. Whether we are in government or in opposition, we all have a job to do in sorting out that problem. In my opinion, there is no worse place to carry out cuts than the NHS. Sick people need treatments that are often expensive and doctors are working out treatment plans and thinking about how they can keep their budget and provide top-class care. There are pressures on the doctors in the system and they are ever mindful of the budget that they have to work to.
	Everyone inside and outside the Chamber is aware of the issues and of the value of the NHS. The debate is about how we can do things better. The Opposition tabled the motion and their concerns have been well rehearsed today.
	In my constituency—many hon. Members have given similar examples—a young lady had been unwell for 10 years with ulcerative colitis. She was responsive to her treatment of infliximab, and yet the doctor had to take her off it because it was too expensive and other more serious cases needed the treatment. However, once
	she was off the treatment she worsened, had to go on the sick and received numerous warnings from her workplace about losing her job. Where would the money truly be saved in such a scenario—stay on the treatment, stay in work, or go off the treatment, go off work?
	My mother had a saying—I am sure that many hon. Members will be able to relate to this—“Your health is your wealth.” It clearly is and those of us who are in good health are fortunate.
	The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is no longer in her place, but she made an excellent, compassionate speech. I think that she probably told the story of this debate in the examples she gave. I told her before she left the Chamber how important it was to have those comments on the record.
	It must be remembered that in its review of independent NHS trust three-year plans up until 2014-15, Monitor, the NHS’s economic regulator, warned that cuts were unlikely to be matched by any let-up in the number of patients requiring care. There is an emphasis on preventive medicine and best to use it. I am sure that the Minister will address how we can ensure that people who are getting older do not succumb to the many diseases and other problems. Sometimes, there is nothing gracious about growing old—it is a fact of life.
	The Minister will talk about efficiency savings—they can achieve much—but when I consider the great job that the Northern Ireland Minister of Health, who happens to be a colleague of mine, has done on efficiency savings, I wonder whether the further cuts to Northern Ireland’s block grant will be applied to health again over the next few years. How much more can we save through efficiency? There is a limit—a ceiling—to what efficiency savings can do without affecting health. John Appleby, the chief economist of the King’s Fund think-tank, has said that the outlook for hospitals in 2013-14 and 2014-15 is particularly severe, with anticipated cuts of about 1% when the Government’s inflation forecast is 2.5%. That is a clear difference.
	Some hospitals plan to partially offset the radical drop in NHS income by expanding their private patient work, aided, as their financial plans say, by moves to restrict NHS funding for certain surgical procedures. This is expected to fuel an increase in patients funding surgery privately. That greatly undermines what the NHS is about—its very thrust—namely care, no matter the condition, provided by national insurance contributions. As has been said, if we introduce a two-tier care system to operations, how long will it take until we find ourselves providing a system similar to America’s private health care system? How ironic it is that the Americans are attempting at this time to a design a system that is in line with our own NHS. Perhaps we can take some lessons from that.
	I also want to comment on the problems that arise when we cut NHS funding. The number of MRSA cases in hospitals has increased. That is not through any particular fault of the staff—I am clear about that—but it is a problem that occurs whenever cost-cutting becomes the No. 1 priority for hospitals. We have to be careful.
	We have already implemented cost-saving measures, such as carrying out certain treatments as day procedures followed by care at home, which, as well as being cost-effective, makes a lot of people feel more secure. However, it is essential that the patient is at the heart of
	any decision made and any strategy must incorporate that. There is a fine balance between cutting costs and cutting care. My fear is that the latest cuts, which will filter through to Northern Ireland through the block grant as a matter of course, will tip the balance for many people.
	Many people in my office tell me that they were brought up to respect authority and that if a doctor tells them something, they accept their word. I come across other people who challenge their doctors and push them for the experimental treatment that they know is available, although at a cost, or for a referral to the mainland for innovative treatment. It saddens me that the results differ between those two types of people. In my opinion, it puts our health care professionals in the difficult position of choosing who deserves and who does not deserve the nth degree of care.
	Recently in this Chamber I questioned the Secretary of State about the shocking use by doctors of so-called death lists—I am very careful about using that terminology—for elderly people, whereby they withhold certain treatments from those who they believe will die anyway. It is a dangerous precedent to set for the NHS when that can and does happen. If one puts oneself in the doctor’s shoes and realises that the Government are putting a great emphasis on cost, one can see that they are almost forcing that choice. That makes it a little more understandable, but no more acceptable.
	As an MP, I have come across many constituents who have come to the mainland to have hospital operations and examinations. We are thankful that we are able to do that, but it involves a cost.
	I am not the kind of person who believes that money grows on trees. I wish that it did. I have some trees in my garden, but I cannot find any money on them. We could spend, spend, spend, but I know that we must reduce the deficit. In my opinion, there are other ways of doing so, such as adopting the proposals put forward in the debate in May on the NHS and foreign nationals. To give a brief reminder of that debate, an article in The Daily Telegraph stated that official figures suggest that
	“more than £40 million is owed to NHS hospitals by foreign patients who were not eligible for free care”.
	It stated that a freedom of information request showed that
	“the average unpaid debt for the provision of care to foreign nationals was £230,000 in the 35 trusts which responded.”
	The article went on to note that the doctors’ trade magazine Pulse claimed:
	“If this figure was the same across all 168 English acute trusts, the total debt would be almost £40 million”.
	Perhaps in his response the Minister could give some detail about whether that money has been collected, and if not, when it will be.
	In that debate, it was suggested that there should be a £1,000 threshold. Has that been implemented yet? Have those who owe the money been chased down? Has the six-month registration period for a GP been altered? In my opinion, by acting on such matters urgently, we can save money without cutting care. Does the Secretary of State agree that such angles must be pursued if we are to stop cutting services and still save money?
	Time has got the better of me, so I will end by urging the Government to look at people and not simply at numbers. If everybody does their job more effectively, we can ensure that all people have top-class care, no matter where they live, without having to pay for it. The NHS is truly a jewel in the crown of this country. Many owe their lives to it and many depend upon it. Let us retain it and build upon it to ensure that in the years to come, it will still be the jewel in the crown that all in this nation cherish, love and depend upon.

Liz Kendall: During this debate, Ministers and the few Government Members who have spoken have either denied that the Government have broken their promise to increase NHS spending or have claimed that it does not matter, as if the Prime Minister’s clear, direct and personal pledge to voters can easily be swept to one side. They—perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh)—have also skated over or ignored the waste, confusion and utter distraction of their back-room NHS upheaval.
	In contrast, Opposition Members have talked about the harsh reality of the double whammy of cuts and reorganisation on their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), my right hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Andy Sawford), for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about their concern that changes to local services are being driven by money alone, not by improving patient care. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who spoke with bravery and compassion about the unacceptable standards of care in parts of the country, which must be tackled.
	Perhaps the most worrying example of the combination of cuts and reorganisation that the Government are forcing through involves what is happening to cancer networks. Those groups of local specialists were set up more than a decade ago under Labour’s 2000 cancer plan to help tackle one of Britain’s biggest killers. It is widely acknowledged that cancer networks have played a central role in improving mortality rates, cancer survival rates and equality of cancer care, and they have done that on small budgets with few staff, offering good value for taxpayers’ money. Crucially, the specialist local skills of cancer networks are vital to making even greater improvements that cancer patients need and deserve in the future.
	Ministers have repeatedly promised to protect budgets for cancer networks. On 31 January last year, the then Health Secretary told the House that
	“cancer networks funding is guaranteed during the course of 2011-12.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 612.]
	On 27 November this year in a debate on the NHS mandate, the new Health Secretary told the House:
	“Cancer networks are here to stay and their budget has been protected.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 127.]
	Those promises have been broken.
	In response to a freedom of information survey from Labour, cancer networks report budget cuts of 13% in 2011-12 alone—[ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State
	shakes his head but he can look through all the figures, including individual examples, if he wants to see those cuts. In total, budgets have been slashed by 26%—by a quarter—since the Government came to power.
	The Government’s national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, at least has the honesty to say that
	“cancer networks will have a smaller proportion of the budget in future.”
	I understand that the Health Minister in the House of Lords, Earl Howe, has also been forced by an urgent question to admit that less money will be available to cancer networks.

Jeremy Hunt: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Liz Kendall: I will, of course, give way to the Secretary of State.

Jeremy Hunt: First, these networks are brilliant. They are a good thing and they have done a huge amount. The Government support them and we are expanding them. That is why instead of just having cancer, cardiac and stroke networks, we will also have networks for dementia and maternity. The budget for those networks is going up by 27%.

Liz Kendall: The budget for cancer networks has been cut by a quarter. The Secretary of State is not expanding those networks but merging them and diluting their specialist expertise, as I will show. The cuts and the Government’s NHS upheaval mean that cancer networks have lost one fifth of their staff, withdrawn or scaled back current work, and put future projects on hold—[ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State is still denying that so let me tell him what the networks actually say.
	The Arden cancer network in Coventry and Warwickshire says that it has lost its vital chemotherapy nurse. The Peninsula cancer network in Devon and Cornwall says it has had to turn down £150,000 from Macmillan Cancer Support to fund a programme for cancer survivors because its future is so uncertain. Essex cancer network says that posts have been removed, its staff are in a redeployment pool, and that it will have
	“no presence in Essex from April 1st next year.”
	Instead of supporting those vital local experts, as well as specialists in heart and stroke networks, the Government are merging them into 12 generic clinical networks that cover bigger geographical regions and far more health conditions. No one is against sharing the skills and experience of cancer and cardiac networks. However, as Maggie Wilcox, a former palliative care nurse, breast cancer patient, president of Independent Cancer Patients’ Voice and the layperson on the recent review by the Department of Health into breast screening said,
	“subsuming cancer networks into generic clinical networks could be disastrous for cancer patients…you cannot be both a specialist and a generalist.”
	That is especially important in an area as complex and fast-developing as cancer. Staff will not be able to make the same depth or scale of improvements if they are forced to cover a large area and more conditions with fewer members of staff.
	The Secretary of State ploughs on regardless, denying that there is a problem and telling BBC Radio 5 Live that it is too early to know what will happen. How utterly complacent and out of touch. Networks are
	already disappearing. Their staff have left or are looking for jobs because their future is in such disarray. With their reckless NHS reorganisation, the Government have wasted not just taxpayers’ money but the knowledge and expertise of specialist staff, and patients are paying the price.

Jeremy Hunt: With respect to the hon. Lady, we have increased the budget for strategic networks by 27%. What would have happened to that budget if we had a lower NHS budget, as her party’s Front Benchers have been arguing for?

Liz Kendall: I do not think the Secretary of State understands that in a really complex and fast-developing area such as cancer, we need to know about individual, specific issues and concerns. If there are fewer staff covering bigger areas and more health conditions, we will not get specialist expertise.
	If the Secretary of State does not believe me, perhaps he would like to comment on what Dr Mick Peake, the clinical lead for NHS cancer improvement and the national cancer intelligence network, has said. He has stated:
	“With the shift towards GPs commissioning, the need for this expert…clinical advice will become ever more crucial…I am worried that in the process of reorganisation of the networks…we will lose many expert and very committed individuals, and that this could impact on the quality of commissioning and cancer services in the future.”
	What will be the impact on patients, who are what the network is supposed to be about? Let us take prevention. Who has championed prevention by increasing the uptake of screening programmes? Cancer networks. Who trains GPs to spot the signs of cancer so that patients get earlier diagnosis? Cancer networks. Who has helped patients get their tests and scans done in days, not months, and slashed waits for cancer specialists to two weeks? Who has helped hospitals compare their performance, use the best drugs and treatments and transform patient information and support, and who has been central to setting up the new national cancer outcomes database, which the Government rightly say will help reduce cancer variations and drive improvements in future? Cancer networks. So why is the Secretary of State diluting—[Interruption.] Oh, now he switches to talking about the cancer drugs fund, because he knows that by stripping away vital local expertise, he is putting care at risk.
	When the Secretary of State tells Radio 5 Live that he does not know why Labour is flogging this issue, calls cancer networks a mere pilot and says that his upheaval will be in patients’ best interests, cancer specialists, patients and Opposition Members know that he is wrong. We know that he cannot sustain the progress on cancer and make even more improvements in future when he is ripping away the foundations of better cancer care. As Earl Howe has just told Members of the Lords, it is “perfectly correct” that the share of the pot that cancer networks will be able to get will be smaller next year than it is this year. I rest my case.
	The Prime Minister said that he would increase spending on the NHS, but NHS spending is lower in real terms today than it was when Labour left office—broken promise No. 1. Health Ministers repeatedly claim that they have protected cancer network budgets—broken promise No. 2. No top-down NHS reorganisation, mental health a priority and social care budgets protected—broken
	promises three, four and five. The list goes on. The Prime Minister claims that his priority can be summed up in three letters—NHS. That very same organisation is responding with its own three letters—SOS. I commend the motion to the House.

Norman Lamb: I start by acknowledging the moving contribution of the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). Her testimony was shocking and should force the whole system to recognise that such experiences are utterly intolerable and have no place in a modern health system in which kindness and compassion must always take first place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to put that at the top of his agenda. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also spoke about that point.
	I have sat in this Chamber for many debates on the NHS; I have spoken in many of them too. I have heard many arguments about a lot of different things, but unfortunately this is one of the most misguided motions I have ever seen. I get on well with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), but on this occasion he is completely wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) said, the debate should be about the massive challenge we face in caring for people with long-term chronic conditions.
	The right hon. Gentleman blames us for his spending plans when he was in office—plans that he signed off when he was in government. Let us have a quick reality check. The coalition’s spending plans kicked in in 2011-12, not before, and in that year there was an increase in real-terms spending. However, hon. Members should not take my word for it: they should ask Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority and a highly respected and eminent economist. He confirmed that in 2011-12, NHS spending increased in real terms compared with the previous year by 0.1%. It says it all that the right hon. Gentleman refused to complete the sentence from Andrew Dilnot’s letter and give the complete picture. Spending will carry on going up for years to come, despite the legacy of financial irresponsibility left us by the last Government—the billions frittered away on a failed IT programme; the vice-like grip of PFI schemes mortgaging—

Lucy Powell: Will the Minister give way?

Norman Lamb: I have very little time.
	Seventy-three billion pounds outstanding on PFI projects, mortgaging the NHS’s future and causing a massive strain on local health economies—that was something alluded to by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and the hon. Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Corby (Andy Sawford). The problems of PFI are massive. Labour also had 25,000 people working in health quangos. That is Labour’s legacy, but now, under the coalition, over the four years to 2014-15 the NHS budget will rise by more than £12.5 billion.

Nigel Adams: May I appeal to the Minister to ensure that rural areas such as North Yorkshire are given a fairer funding formula when the Secretary of State reassesses the formula shortly?

Norman Lamb: I understand the concern about rural areas and I will write to my hon. Friend about that. That £12.5 billion will go into improving services, hiring staff and keeping people well. That money will help to protect our health even as the age of the population goes up.

Lucy Powell: I thank the Minister for giving way. [ Interruption. ] Let me tell the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that I am not going to read anything out. After such a long and lively debate, I just want to know whether the Minister will now clarify the matter that is before the House. Was NHS expenditure, in Dilnot’s words, lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10? Yes or no?

Norman Lamb: The letter from Andrew Dilnot—the part that the right hon. Member for Leigh did not read out—also said that
	“it might also be fair to say that real-terms expenditure had changed little over this period.”
	In 2011-12, it went up according to Andrew Dilnot.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already gone through the numbers outlining what is happening in the NHS today. He has already mentioned all those areas where the NHS is now healthier than under Labour—60,000 fewer people waiting longer than 18 weeks than under Labour; a determination to give access rights to those with mental health problems, as well as those with physical health problems, which was something bizarrely left out by Labour; more than 3 million more out-patient appointments every year than under Labour; more clinical staff, including 5,000 more doctors; and better access to drugs than ever before, including £600 million for the cancer drugs fund. On the cancer networks, the budget for networks as a whole is going up by 27%, which includes dementia and maternity—something that was also left out by Labour. Had the Labour party had its way and cut NHS spending, what would have happened to the networks in those circumstances?
	Here is the important point, a point that Labour Members have unsurprisingly chosen not to mention throughout the length of this debate—that money would not be there under Labour. I have no doubt that they will protest, but it is there in black and white, immortalised in Hansard and in the press: for years, they have consistently advocated spending less than us on the NHS. In 2010, the right hon. Member for Leigh was speaking in an interview with the New Statesman . He said:
	“Cameron’s been saying it every week in the Commons: ‘Oh, the shadow health secretary wants to spend less on health than us.’”
	The interviewer fired back:
	“Which is true, isn’t it?”,
	and the right hon. Gentleman admitted ,“Yes, it’s true”. In the same year, as reported in The Guardian, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.
	Yet it goes even further than that. A year before those interviews, in 2009, he could not even promise that the NHS would be protected from cuts. The chief economist from the King’s Fund agrees. Commenting on Labour’s plans, he said that the implication of the overall budget for the NHS was that it would be cut in real terms from between a very small amount to up to 5% over two
	years. That is what would have happened, had Labour won the election. It will fool no one: it will not fool the public, patients, the professionals or this House. We all know that the coalition is moving heaven and earth to protect the proud heritage of the NHS and drive up standards for everyone—whoever they are and wherever they live.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood rightly says, the challenge is how we rethink how services are delivered across the health and social care divide to prevent crises from occurring. Prevention is what we should be doing, as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) rightly pointed out. If Labour Members do not like our plans, it is up to them, but if they think the NHS would be doing better with less money, more mixed-sex wards, longer waiting times and fewer clinical staff, they are more than welcome to that position. They can cling on to that as long as they wish, but what is unforgiveable is for them to try to hoodwink the public into belittling an NHS that is getting better and better all the time. We have an NHS that is treating more people than ever better than ever, an NHS that is preparing itself for new challenges every day.
	Let us compare that with Labour’s real NHS project in Wales, where we see cuts—cuts that have resulted in half a billion pounds taken out of the NHS in Wales by Labour. Waiting times are longer than in England and a higher proportion of patients is waiting for treatment. That is the true face of Labour on the NHS, and in England we should fight it as passionately as we can.
	We have seen clearly today the desperation of the Labour party—a desperation that has led it to try to misinterpret inconvenient statistics. Frankly—

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 233, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Church of England (Women Bishops)

Nigel Evans: For clarification purposes, this debate can last up to three hours. Although I shall not put an initial limit on Back-Bench contributions, if those who have indicated that they wish to speak could focus their minds on about 10 minutes a time limit might not have to be imposed.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Church of England Synod vote on women bishops.
	I am delighted to see so many hon. and right hon. Members in their places. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule the debate and my colleagues on both sides of the House for supporting it. I was encouraged to apply for the debate by the huge level of interest from Members on both sides when, in a move that I think was unprecedented, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) came to answer an urgent question after the General Synod rejected the Women Bishops Measure.
	Some people think that we should not be discussing this matter at all and that it is no business of Parliament to involve ourselves in the affairs of the Church, but that is to fail to understand our constitution. The Church of England is not like any other faith group—it is the established Church, answerable to Parliament. We can have a debate about whether or not that is a good thing, and I am sure hon. Members will do so.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech, but does he agree that in a multi-faith society there is no longer any place for an established Church?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I am afraid I do not agree. For the record, I support establishment, because it provides for what I call a servant Church—a Church that is there for anyone. Many of us will have had experience of that in our constituencies at times of great civic celebration or mourning or simply in the lives of our constituents who may not feel themselves to be particularly religious but find the Church of England is there for them when they need it when they wish to baptise, marry or bury a loved one.
	With establishment comes privileges, such as the presence of Church of England bishops in the House of Lords for example, but with those privileges come duties, one of which is the legal requirement for Church of England legislation to be approved by Parliament. To those who say we should not be talking about this, I say not only that we should be but that we do not have a choice. If Synod had passed the Women Bishops Measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which I and a number of other hon. Members and Members of the other place sit, would have had to consider and approve it in the coming months. There would then have had to be debates and votes on the Floors of both Houses.
	What has been forgotten in the debate since the Synod vote is that it is perfectly possible that we in Parliament might have rejected the Measure. It is interesting
	reading the proceedings of this House on women’s ordination more than 20 years ago. Then, Parliament acted as a brake on progress. I remember Members such as John Gummer, Ann Widdecombe and Patrick Cormack, who ensured that extra safeguards for the opponents of women’s ordination were written into the legislation.

David Burrowes: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the issue of women bishops, but does he agree that the vote was not simply about the principle of being for or against women bishops? It was about protections for dissenting voices, like those written into the legislation to which he refers. When we talk about those who were dissenting, we should not just characterise them as being for or against women’s rights when a significant number are simply taking a doctrinal view.

Ben Bradshaw: I shall come on to that in a while.
	I was making the point that back then, Parliament acted as a brake on women’s ordination, but in the intervening two decades there has been a huge change in attitudes in both Houses to gender equality in general and on the role of women in the Church in particular, as we have experienced and witnessed women’s ministry in practice in our communities. My assessment is that when a resurrected Women Bishops Measure comes before the House, the main danger for it is not that it will contain insufficient safeguards for its opponents but that it will contain too many and be deemed inconsistent with widely accepted views on equality.

Jim Shannon: Figures that have just been released show that half of those who voted against the legislation to allow female bishops were women. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman will have to examine the Church personship of those particular members of Synod, but it is not a secret that there are as many female members of the conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic wings of Synod as there are male members. We do not necessarily make choices and choose values based on our gender.

David Winnick: Arising from that intervention, does my right hon. Friend not agree that when women were campaigning for the parliamentary vote and to sit as Members of Parliament, it was argued that the majority of women wanted nothing of the kind?

Ben Bradshaw: Indeed, that is an interesting historical parallel.
	It is important that we in the Church consider the reality of parliamentary opinion as the bishops, led by the new archbishop, try to chart a way forward. If they are to resolve this matter quickly using the usual or some form of expedited Synod process, they will still need a two-thirds majority in all three Houses of Synod—bishops, clergy and laity—and they will need to get it through Parliament.
	It has been widely reported that if the Measure is further watered down in any way or more concessions offered to opponents, it will not get through Synod. However, it may well not get through Parliament either.

James Clappison: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the Church is for everyone. I have received letters from constituents who have a genuine, deep-rooted objection in conscience to the Measure. Does he agree that it is important for the Church to make every effort to accommodate those of faith and conscience who have a long-standing doctrinal view, even though it may come into conflict with what he described as the values of today?

Ben Bradshaw: My view is that the Church should make every reasonable effort to accommodate those views, but the feeling of the overwhelming majority, both of Synod and of the Church of England, is that concessions have gone far enough. As I shall explain, the danger for opponents is that they may have overplayed their hand at the last Synod, and they will not get a deal as good as the one that was on the table then.
	I want to make one more point to those who argue that this is none of our business. Many of us are members of the Church of England, and those who are not have constituents who are. Any Member of Parliament who has had contact with Churches in their constituency in the past two weeks will be aware of the enormous shock and hurt among many Anglicans about the Synod vote. We have had women priests for 20 years. The majority of new ordinands are women. Some of the deans of our great cathedrals are women. The Church has been debating women bishops for years.
	Everyone thought that it was a done deal. The dioceses voted 42 out of 44 in favour. In Synod itself, the bishops voted 44 in favour and two against, with two abstentions. Three quarters of the clergy voted yes and even in the House of Laity, 64% voted in favour, but that was 2%—just six votes—short of the required two-thirds majority. If we look at the analysis of those who voted that was helpfully provided by the Thinking Anglicans website, we can see that supporters of women bishops in the House of Laity all voted yes. The blocking minority was made up, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) indicated, of opponents from the conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic wings. The composition of Synod is not due to change until 2015, so unless some of those who voted no this time can be persuaded to change their mind, I doubt whether the bishops can be confident of getting a revised Measure through before 2015 under the normal or even an expedited procedure that requires a two-thirds majority in every House.
	The only way we might persuade some of the opponents to change sides is by offering them more concessions, but that would be anathema to the majority and would not get through Parliament. There is no guarantee, of course, that if we wait until after 2015, it would be any different.

John Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman as surprised and delighted as I was by a petition that began in one of my smaller villages to try to persuade the Bishop of Oxford to have a shorter, much simpler process in a week? That petition has already gained 1,500 signatures.

Ben Bradshaw: Indeed, and I understand that there have been spontaneous meetings at local and synodical level all over the country. At an emergency meeting this week, the synod in Bristol voted in a similar vein. There has been a real upswelling of indignation and sadness among many ordinary Anglicans.
	As I was saying, things may be no better in the new Synod. The conservative evangelicals are well organised and motivated. If we look at the voting figures in the House of Laity, we see that the majority of lay representatives from some dioceses voted no, even when their diocesan synod had voted overwhelmingly yes. Of course I hope and expect that there will be conversations at local level with these people, to whom it should be gently pointed out that they have not really represented the views of their diocese very well. I have had quite a lot of dealings with the opponents, and particularly conservative evangelicals, and I am not filled with confidence that they will be persuadable.

Bob Stewart: As I understand it, the Synod vote was not about whether there should be women bishops; apparently, that has been agreed already. The vote may well have been—I stand to be corrected—about how the Church can be kept together, in light of the fact that a minority of people, perhaps for theological reasons, cannot accept the oversight of a woman. That might be the nub of the problem. That is a question, as much as a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: The answer, of course, is yes, but the Measure made very generous provision for opponents of women priests and bishops; it would have allowed them to continue to have their own bishop. Supporters of the Measure believe that the concessions were pretty generous, and I do not think that they will become any more generous in the weeks and months to come.
	That is why I say to the bishops that there comes a time in any organisation, whether it be a political party or a Church, when it is no longer sustainable or possible to move at the pace of the slowest, which in this case means not moving at all. The overwhelming majority of Anglicans do not want more delay. They believe that the opponents of women bishops will never be reconciled. If some of the opponents decide to leave for Rome or to set up their own conservative evangelical sect, so be it. Similar threats were made over women’s ordination. In the event, far fewer people left the Church of England than was predicted, and as time has gone on, more and more parishes that originally decided that they did not want women priests have come to accept and celebrate them.

Seema Malhotra: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is vital that the Church of England considers its trajectory and progress, bearing in mind that women bishops are already part of the international Anglican community in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States and elsewhere?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. I shall mention some of the provinces of the Church of England that already have women bishops when I come on to one of the possible solutions to the impasse.
	I was talking about people coming in and out of the Church. For every one person who may leave the Church of England over women bishops, there will be many
	more who stay or come back; there are also people who, at the moment, shrug and say, “Why should I take a second look at an institution that treats women like this?”, but who will take that second look if women are fully celebrated in the Church. In the discussions that we often have about the importance of Church unity, we very rarely talk about those who have already left or been driven out of the Church, or who have not come in, including members of my extended family and my circle of friends—I am sure that the same applies to many hon. Members—because of the failure of the Church to make progress more quickly.
	Having announced on the eve of this debate that they will have another go in July, the Bishops need to be sure that they will win. The process must be concluded quickly—in months, not years. If they are not sure that they can deliver, they should ask Parliament for help. Since the Synod vote, many of us will have been contacted by priests and lay members of the Church, appealing to Parliament to act. A priest from Lancaster wrote to me, saying, “Please, please, please, help.” She went on to ask us to remove the Church’s exemption from equality laws, describing it as
	“deeply offensive to most women priests.”

Neil Parish: I am very much a supporter of the Church of England having women bishops. Do we speed up the pace at which the Church moves by having this debate, or is it much better to let the Church of England get on with it?

Ben Bradshaw: The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) may be able to add some helpful intelligence in that regard when he replies, but from all the conversations that I have had with people from the archbishop downwards, they are encouraging us to have this debate. They feel that they need the pressure to be kept on from this place, so the simple answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is that it is helpful.
	Other correspondents have questioned the continued presence of an all-male episcopate in the other place, and suggested that the Prime Minister put a hold on new bishop appointments until the issue is resolved. A male vicar from London wrote to me saying that because the failure lies in the synodical election process, Parliament should intervene. The Dean of Sheffield wrote to me saying:
	“Parliament has a responsibility to take action when the future of the established Church is threatened by the actions of a vocal and determined minority.”
	Canon Jane Charman, the diocesan director of Salisbury, wrote:
	“The Church of England has a privileged place in our national life and Parliament has not just a right but a duty to help us fulfil our responsibilities appropriately.”
	She goes on:
	“I believe it would be a kindness to the Church and to our Archbishop designate if Parliament can now do for us what we have proved unable to do for ourselves and so bring this shameful situation to an end.”
	Canon Charman goes on to suggest this could be done by a simple mechanism of Parliament amending Canon C2, as we would have been asked to do if the Women Bishops Measure had passed.
	Women and the Church, or WATCH, which is the umbrella group for those supporting women’s ordination and consecration as bishops, also says that resolving the issue would be a simple task requiring the repeal of one clause of the 1993 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure or the removal of one clause of one section of Canon Law. WATCH is pessimistic about the prospect of a successful compromise in July and now advocates a simple measure legislating for women bishops. It says that that is the only legislation that Parliament should accept. Provision for dissenters, it says, should be as in all the other Anglican provinces that have women bishops—that is, based on pastoral and informal support.
	A non-stipendiary priest and senior civil servant has written to me advocating a simple amendment to legislation, making it legal for anyone to be a bishop regardless of gender. This permissive model would not force the Church to have women bishops but, he predicts, the Crown Nominations Committee would nominate a female bishop within a year or so and some diocesan bishops may well start appointing female suffragans pretty much immediately.
	What we have here is not Parliament wishing to intervene or relishing intervening in Church affairs, but priests and lay people in the Church pleading with us to do so. Some people have suggested that it would be unfair or unconstitutional for Parliament to single out the Church of England in legislation in this way. But that is exactly what the Government are proposing to do on same-sex marriage. The Church of England is to receive special legislation, at its own request, applying exclusively to it, banning same-sex weddings in Anglican churches. If Parliament can legislate exclusively for the Church of England to ban same-sex weddings, something the Church is perfectly capable of deciding to do for itself, why should not Parliament legislate exclusively for the Church to do something it wants but cannot deliver for itself—women bishops?

Chris Bryant: Has my right hon. Friend noticed a particular irony? It looks like this House and the House of Lords will have a significant majority in favour of the legislation that he has just referred to, but the one place where it will not be possible to perform such a marriage is the Crypt Chapel of Parliament. Would it not be a good idea if that were handed over to all the faiths, rather than just one faith?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, there are all sorts of anomalies in the legislation that was presented yesterday, but today is not the time to debate those. We will have plenty of opportunity to do so. It is interesting that the Church of England was asking for Parliament to protect it from itself, so to speak, over equal marriage, yet it is still rather resistant, as things stand, to our helping it to legislate on something that its says it wants to do but so far has not been capable of delivering for itself.

Peter Bottomley: Before we get diverted down discussions that we had yesterday and will have in future on other subjects, will the right hon. Gentleman return briefly to what has happened in the other provinces? Can he say slowly and clearly that where they trusted diocesan bishops to make suitable
	arrangements, those arrangements were made, and the heavens have not fallen in on those who might be regarded as conservative or dissenters?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada and South Africa all have women bishops, and they have systems that are without any legislative alternative for episcopal oversight; they have voluntary pastoral care. From what I hear, that works well and people are perfectly happy with it, and the women bishops themselves deal with it very sensitively.

Eleanor Laing: Would it help the right hon. Gentleman’s argument if I pointed out that the Church of Scotland, which is also the established Church, and which has no bishops or hierarchy, has no problems whatsoever of discrimination against women. It has had women Ministers for many years, and indeed a woman Moderator of its General Assembly, without any adverse effects?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, indeed, and I commend the Church of Scotland on that. Of course, the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is the sister Church of the Anglican Church, legislated for women bishops about 10 years ago. I do not think that it has appointed any yet, but that is already possible and the heavens have not fallen in north of the border.
	When the Minister and the hon. Member for Banbury respond to the debate, I hope that they feel they can comment on the various suggestions for legislative solutions that we have collectively received. I also hope that the hon. Member for Banbury can reassure us that the bishops have an acceptable plan that will work, and work quickly. In the crisis meeting that was held between the bishops and Members of this House and the other place the day after the Synod vote, I was struck by the total unanimity from MPs and peers on the view that the vote had been a disaster for the Church, that the matter had to be resolved quickly and that, if it was not, Parliament would act.
	Mr William Fittall, secretary-general of the General Synod, has said:
	“Unless the Church of England can show very quickly it’s capable of sorting itself out, we shall be into a major constitutional crisis in Church-State relations, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with any confidence.”
	Some people might relish such a prospect. I and, I believe, most Members of this House and most members of the Church of England do not. That is why together we must find an urgent solution to this damaging impasse.

Martin Vickers: It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate. I agree almost entirely with what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has said. I will not dwell on the great theological arguments or the interpretation of St Paul’s letters. Instead, I want to give a view from the pew which I think is very different from that expressed by the House of Laity.
	I have been a member of the Church of England since my baptism. I have served on parochial church councils for more years than I care to remember. I have been a church treasurer and, for five years, a church
	warden. During that time, I can recall—to my shame—voting only once in an election for a General Synod representative. It is a process clouded in mystery, and one in which the vast majority of churchgoers are uninterested.
	We are all completely mystified about why people lack interest in the democratic process. I am sure that we all have appeared at church and village halls in front of—how shall I put it?—small audiences, but I can recall only one occasion when no one turned up to a public meeting, and that was when I stood for election to the General Synod six or seven years ago. We held three or four meetings across the Lincoln diocese, to which all the candidates were invited. On one occasion about 15 people turned up, and four turned up at another, but at the one held in a church hall in Brigg the one person there was the caretaker, and he did not want to be there. It makes us question how representative the House of Laity is.
	Democracy is a wonderful thing. I was reflecting on that a few weeks ago, because the elections for police and crime commissioners and the vote on women bishops more or less coincided. We had a wonderful result in the Humberside police force area, but the winning candidate received fewer first-choice votes than the loser, while in the Synod, the votes for women bishops were greater in number than those against. We have to reflect on the system that is used. I am encouraged by the noises that I hear coming from the Church saying that changes are afoot. I sincerely hope that the Synod, particularly the House of Laity, becomes much more representative in the not-too-distant future.

Rehman Chishti: On democratic systems, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) mentioned the rule for having a two-thirds majority in all three aspects of the Church. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is completely out of touch and that there should be a single majority, as when Members of Parliament are elected to this place?

Martin Vickers: My instinct is to say yes, but having just reflected on different voting systems and the potential outcome, I recognise that we need careful thought on how we proceed. I very much hope that the Church will, at a very early date, make alternative proposals.
	The important thing is that we quickly move on from this. I mentioned the average person in the pew. We desperately want a Church that proclaims the gospel and cares about its mission in local communities, and at a wider level about being recognised and appreciated by the great majority. It may well be that a smaller number of people than not so long ago will admit to being a Christian, and that is sad, but it is certain that that number will not grow if the Church is seen to be concentrating on these interminable internal arguments in which the wider world is not the slightest bit interested. I want the Church of England to play an important role in our society, because it is vitally needed. As we see time and again at a national and a local level, it brings people together both at times of thanksgiving and in difficult circumstances. There is clearly a role for the Church to play in its mission not only to believers but to non-believers and agnostics.
	I urge the Church to move as quickly as possible to revise the election procedures, particularly within the House of Laity, so that the Synod becomes more
	representative. The message needs to come from this House that we are concerned about the situation and want to nudge the Church in the right direction, and hope that it moves in that direction, but we should not completely rule out taking the matter into our own hands.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I do so with some trepidation. Although I am a Christian, I am a Roman Catholic, and we do not tend to have too many debates about democracy in the Church of Rome.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) rightly said that although the figure has dropped, 33 million people in this country still regard themselves as Christian. It is therefore right that the House of Commons discusses issues regarding the Christian Church and Christianity. I have a great deal of time for the Anglican Church. It is a great force for good in the world, and in terms of international development it has done a great job for people who suffer. In my own country of Wales, it is a remarkable institution. Yesterday the Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, rightly expressed some confusion as to exactly what the Government are intending to do in relation to the disestablished Church in Wales as regards same-sex marriages, but I am sure that they will be able to sort that out as time goes by.
	When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Church of Ireland—the Anglican Church there—played a hugely important role in the peace process, particularly under Archbishop Robin Eames. As I have said, I am not an Anglican, although my mother was, but my personal experience is that the Church is a great force for good.
	One might think that, as a Roman Catholic, I would oppose women bishops. I actually do not take any particular view on what the Church of England should do; it is a matter for the Church. Logic tells me, however, that if we have women priests, we should have women bishops, and I think that the majority of practising Anglicans think so too. I understand, however, that there are people in the Church of England who do not share that view, and they need to be safeguarded somehow. I guess that a compromise will eventually be found.
	The thrust of my remarks is to ask what Parliament should be doing about this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) made an impassioned, powerful and sensible speech on the issue. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, but I understand the passion with which he made his arguments. As parliamentarians, we need to take great care with anything we do in relation to a Christian Church, even though that Church is established. The Anglican Church in Wales is not established, so this does not apply there, but the Church of England is established, and it is different for that reason.
	In the 25 years I have been in this place, I have never voted on any Church of England Measure. That is not because I did not have a view on those matters, but because I believe that, as a Catholic, I should not vote on them. Also, as a Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency, where the Anglican Church is disestablished, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to take part in such votes. I will continue not to vote on any such issues until I finish in this place.
	We are in a rather muddled position at the moment. The Church of England is established, which means that there are bishops in the upper House and that certain things have to happen in the House of Commons. However, the composition of the House of Commons is very different now from what it used to be. Many Members are not Christians, never mind members of the Church of England. Is it really right that they should take part in decisions on what a Christian Church should do? I worry about that. I believe that common sense will prevail at the end of the day, however, and that debates such as these might prod the Church of England to reach a speedy conclusion on this matter.

Penny Mordaunt: This has been an incredibly damaging episode for the Church and, as other Members have said, we should reserve the right to act. However, the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is highly valued as an institution, and the best way by far for the Church to reverse this terrible public relations damage would be for it to resolve the problem itself.

Paul Murphy: That is the feeling that lay behind the thinking of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) when he was Prime Minister. He said that he would not take part in choosing bishops of the Church of England, and that that should be a matter for the Appointments Committee. I believe that he was right. I do not see why a Methodist, a member of the Church of Scotland, a Roman Catholic or someone with no faith at all should decide whom the head of the Church of England should be. That would be incredibly wrong in this day and age. The Church itself should make that decision. I accept that there are strong views on this issue, but as I said, I believe that this debate will have some value in that it might prod the Church of England into reaching a speedy conclusion.

Chris Bryant: I rather sympathise with my right hon. Friend’s take on the state of the Church in relation to its established nature, not because I want it to be disestablished, but because I think that there could be different ways in which it could be established that were more akin to the established nature of the Church of Scotland. In Scotland, Parliament never decides on any such matters. The truth of the matter is that, as the law and the settlement stand, if women bishops are to happen, that decision will have to come through here. If there are more concessions, I cannot see that getting through Synod or through here.

Paul Murphy: I understand the problems. I am in a difficult position in relation to the establishment of the Church of England. On balance, I think that it should remain established, but that the settlement of establishment might have to be changed, as my hon. Friend has just suggested. Its establishment sends a signal that we are, I hope, still a Christian country. The fact that it is established underpins that. However, I beg Members to be conscious of the fact that it must still be the Church itself that makes this decision. We might have our views on the matter, but we are not members of Synod—except for one or two of us—and should not be in a position to take that final decision. So this is a word of warning—
	a kind word—for the Church of England and for Members on both sides of this House who hold strong views about this.

Guy Opperman: I support wholeheartedly the argument for women bishops and believe strongly that it will happen; the question is not if, but when. The recent decision was a great disappointment. It is a great honour and privilege to follow three of the finest speeches that I have heard in some time, by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy).
	I was a lapsed member of a religion. It was well and truly bred out of me by having to go twice a day and three times on Sundays as a child. It may have also been assisted by the fact that I discovered horse racing, and my talent as a bookmaker did not endear me to the local vicar where I went to school. When I became a jockey—a very poor one, I admit—many people prayed that I would improve, because I kept losing on favourites, which upset them tremendously.
	I have now reverted to the faith and am an enthusiastic member of the Church of England. I rise to speak not because I believe that I have a great deal to contribute to this debate, but because I want to address one specific issue. I urge that the Church be allowed to resolve this matter—I strongly endorse this—of its own volition and in its own way. It concerns me desperately when the state starts to interfere with matters of the Church. I accept entirely the points made by the right hon. Member for Exeter and endorse the comments made by some of those who intervened on him. It is accepted that this place has a role to play, by reason of its statutory controls, in overseeing and ultimately endorsing the Church’s actions. However, we would take a large and significant step—in this I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—if we attempted to mandate, order or empower the Church to take any action that it could manifestly resolve itself.
	It is self-evident that rights are often won very slowly. Some parties to the argument wish the debate to move speedily and for the matter to be resolved. I am one of them, but that does not mean that I should tell the Church how it should behave such that it would not be able to resolve its own difficulties itself. In that respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who said after a previous debate:
	“This is not an issue which can in any way be parked for the next couple of years or so, waiting for another round of synod elections…This has to be an issue that has to be resolved as soon as possible.”
	That implies that Parliament should get involved, but I disagree.

Tony Baldry: That was certainly not the implication. With all due respect to my hon. Friend, he has misunderstood what I said. I was saying that the Church has to get on with it, and I am very glad that it is getting on with it, as evidenced by this week’s meeting of the House of Bishops and the programme of work that it set out.

Guy Opperman: I am happy to take that guidance and clarification, because some people will have interpreted some of our debates and the questions that have been
	asked over the past month or so as giving the impression that we wish to get involved, rather than allowing the Church itself to make those decisions. I endorse entirely my hon. Friend’s point that the Church has bravely taken the step to expedite matters as best as possible. Tomorrow, some of us will meet Bishop Justin Welby, who I understand is anxious to resolve the matter as quickly and efficaciously as possible.
	It is right that we discuss this issue. We should take this opportunity to celebrate the role of women in the Church. It is patently obvious in my constituency that their presence has transformed the Church and improved it immeasurably. The Church is much more open and is much enlivened by the presence of females leading the congregation. That can only be a good thing.

Stephen Timms: I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s argument that it would be better if the Church resolved this matter itself, but does he not accept that there will be limitations on that, given, for example, that there is currently a bloc of Members in the other place, all of whom happen to be men? There is a limit to how long that can continue.

Guy Opperman: I would go further. I see it as the natural progression from this debate that there will be women bishops, that there will be women bishops in the other place and, ultimately, that there is the potential for women archbishops, although I have no doubt that that will not happen speedily. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says and he moves me on to my next point, which is that there cannot be partial equality. Eventually, equality must be total. In that respect, what goes on in the other place must follow what is taking place in this debate.
	As one of my female priests put it to me, the Church is not actually about the House of Laity, but about the work that it does locally in its parishes. That is the most important part of its work. In my constituency and across Northumberland, I am certain that it is providing a fantastic service. Although I may have been a lapsed sinner in respect of the vices of horse racing, bookmaking and being a poor jockey, I am happy to now be in the right place.

Frank Field: When I first heard the result from the Synod, I was surprised, not only by the sense of despair but by the amount of joy that I felt. The joy was caused by seeing so many people, particularly women, taking the result seriously. I thought that it would be dismissed as another little local difficulty for the Church and that very few people would pay much attention to it. I was genuinely surprised and pleased by the number of women who are not Church members who were affronted by the decision.
	I was surprised by my despair over the decision. The Church of England had just gone through the establishment of a commission to appoint a new Archbishop of Canterbury. The commission came to the conclusion that the guy who had hardly got his clothes on as a bishop should be given the top job. Given that the Church thinks that God moves in mysterious ways to guide its decisions, if that was not seen as the powers that be suggesting to the Church that the gene pool was pretty poorly based and that it would be foolish to
	continue to hide itself from half the human race when it comes to questions of leadership, one despairs at the experts in the Synod who are supposed to read the times better than the rest of us.
	The result of the commission was, in the words of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), to appoint a “holy thug”. We are into very interesting times with this new archbishop. He is already showing his leadership by suggesting that the Church will confront this issue and be encouraged to remake the decision.
	If I may, I will make two points about the remaking of the decision. There are moves that should legitimately be made by the Synod and moves that we should make. I do not favour, at this stage, interfering with the Synod’s processes. Therefore, I do not think that we should change the rules of the game by changing the canons or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) suggested, changing the legislation in such a way that it makes it inevitable that there will be women bishops. That move is long overdue and, as my Roman Catholic right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, once the key decision has been made and there are no theological objections to women being priests, there can be no theological objections to their being bishops. Bishops are those in ministry who are given additional responsibilities. The nature of their task is not different from that of a priest—indeed, it may not be as important as that of a local priest—but they have added responsibilities.
	What areas should hon. Members and the synods be concerned with? The synods, I hope, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, will follow the diocese of Bristol and table motions of no confidence in the current Synod. Presumably at some stage such a total of dioceses will have done that and the Synod will have to be dissolved and new elections fought. Clearly, those elections will be fought on the issue of women bishops, and I look forward to that very much. When the new Synod gets down to business, it might look at the extraordinary procedure to which it subjects itself when trying to pass reforms, which is very harmful.
	The message is that the Synod should get on and start reforming itself, but that must come through the parishes and the dioceses. At some stage, the dioceses will force the hand of the Synod. To those who say that they cannot afford it and that the Church must stumble on like this for a number of years, I say that that is an appalling argument to put forward and I hope that the Synod will not pay attention to it.
	What can hon. Members do? Two suggestions have been made about how we might act. One was that we should withdraw the privilege that this place gave to the Church to discriminate against women 37 years ago. If one reads the debates, this place was convinced by the argument that the Church needed a bit more time to sort out the matter. Most of us would think 37 years—quite a few Parliaments—is long enough for it to have sorted itself out. I therefore hope that Members who agree with that approach will support the Bill that I have promoted, whose Second Reading will be on 18 January, to limit that privilege and say that the Church has had its time and that we will act legitimately in that area.
	The second measure, which has also been hinted at, was presented as a Bill today and will also have its Second Reading on 18 January. Under the present
	circumstances it is totally proper for this House to say that no more writs can be issued to allow male bishops to take vacancies in the House of Lords. My short Bill proposes that the power to issue such a writ will go to the archbishop, who will choose from senior women deans to fill places in the House of Lords. We will have what would have been in the pre-reformed Church—
	[
	Interruption
	]
	—
	and those deans can take their place in the House of Lords.
	I hope that hon. Members feel—this is the theme of the speeches we have heard this evening—that we should not cease to be concerned about this matter, but that we must be careful to keep to legitimate activities and not interfere with the Synod’s powers to expedite the measure and reform itself. Unless we get real movement on that, I hope that hon. Members who support both those measures will be in the House on 18 January not only to wish but to ensure that those Bills are speeded on to the statute book.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for leading the debate so well and to the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it.
	I will declare my interests. I was baptised into the Church of England and confirmed into the Church in Wales—the latter makes me much more comfortable, because I support disestablishment. I am chair of a Church primary school, nominated by my diocese, Southwark, a trustee of a Church secondary school in my constituency and a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee in Parliament.
	Like everybody who spoke immediately after the Synod’s decision, I despaired at the folly of the Church of England in making a huge public mistake. After so long, everybody was clear about the view of the Church as a whole. We have heard the figure that 42 of the 44 dioceses are in favour of women bishops, and we have heard the view of the leadership, including Archbishop Rowan Williams, who did everything he could to ensure that the change was delivered during his time as Archbishop, for which we thank him.
	I come from the evangelical tradition, and many evangelicals support the ordination of women as both priests and bishops. The situation is not one category in favour and another against. In the church to which I belong, St James in Bermondsey, which would be classed as an evangelical church, I do not think there is a single person who does not support the ordination of women as bishops.
	Evangelicals look back to the scriptures, as does everybody else who gets involved in this argument. Although I understand why people have come to the view that they cannot accept that there can be women priests or bishops, that has very little biblical foundation. Nothing in my New Testament says that Christ set up a structure by saying, “You will have churches, and you will have deacons, priests and bishops, and they will all be men.” I may have missed something, but I have read the whole New Testament at one stage or another and there is nothing that says that. Although a tradition of having men has built up, some of the early leaders of
	the Church right from the beginning, when Christ was executed and rose again, were women. Indeed, in the early days some Churches had women bishops, for heaven’s sake. I do not understand why we are having to revisit this issue after so long.

Lyn Brown: I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. It has always surprised me that women seemed to have a good, established position in the early Church, right up until it was legalised and then became the state religion of Rome. That leads me to feel that we should overturn the centuries of discrimination against women in the Church, possibly by disestablishing it. Maybe, once it is disestablished, it will be able to see a proper route to incorporating women as a proper and fundamental part of the Christian family.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady and I are on the same wavelength on that. I understand the arguments for establishment, but I believe that a radical Church should not be part of the establishment. We should be outside the establishment campaigning for Christian values, but we have ended up being in the establishment by accident. That is a debate for another time, and we will not resolve it today.
	One paradox is that the established Church of England has decided not to have women bishops when the head of the Church of England, the supreme governor, is a woman. The whole thing is inconsistent. There is another anomaly in the argument that, because of the relatively recent history of the Church, only men can be priests, and that people want to be under the pastoral responsibility of a male bishop. The Church has provided that option in relation to priests, and it works. Now it has come up with a similar proposal for those who want a male bishop. It seems to me that if the first worked, the second is likely to work. I ask people to be generous and less suspicious and untrusting. It is understood that some people have a different view, and everybody has tried hugely hard to accommodate it.

Peter Bottomley: I remember my wife, as a female Secretary of State, taking the present Bishop of London to see the Queen to present the bishop, who would not ordain women, to be head of the Church of England.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that the Church of England decided not to have women bishops. The fair way to put it is that the Church of England Synod decided by a very large majority to have women bishops, and it is now a question of how and when, rather than rejecting that.

Simon Hughes: I agree.
	I am clear that, in theory, there is no objection to women priests according to the Bible and Christian teaching. I am not a theologian, but the theology seems clear to me. However, it also seems to me that the Anglican Church has accepted women bishops all around the world. According to the information that I have, there are five Anglican provinces that already have women bishops, one of which has a woman presiding bishop—New Zealand and Polynesia, Australia, Canada, southern Africa and the United States. There is also the diocese of Cuba, which is not in any province.
	A further 12 provinces have agreed that they can have women bishops and they are not, as it were, the usual suspects—Bangladesh, Brazil, central America, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, north India, the Philippines, Scotland, Sudan and Uganda. If I may say so, for heaven’s sake, if all those places have dealt with the theological argument and concluded that this is possible, then the Church of England is far from leading the Anglican communion; rather, it is following behind. There is a remaining group of provinces that have not yet accepted that they can have women bishops, but which have women priests, so they are clearly on the way. It therefore seems that many people in the Anglican communion have addressed this issue both in theory and theology and in practice.
	Let me repeat what has been said strongly by others. My experience is that the Church has benefited enormously from allowing women into the ministry of the priesthood in the last 20 years, not just through their life experience, pastoral, academic and intellectual qualities and preaching ability, but simply through the sheer numbers. The right hon. Member for Exeter, who opened the debate, referred to that. At the moment, 20% of ministers in the Anglican Church are women. Across the Christian denominations in the UK, 20% is the average—the Methodists have 40%, but the average is 20%. In 2010—the last full year—more women than men were ordained as Anglicans into the priesthood for the first time. There are now 50% more women in the Church of England in full-time parochial appointments than 10 years ago. One in five of the paid clergy are women. All the evidence is that people are saying—from evangelicals to those in other parts of the Church, from women to men, from old to young—that they believe there should be women bishops in the Church.
	The Church desperately needs more people willing to be its priests, its bishops and its leaders, to get out there and do the job of preaching and teaching. To say that women cannot be allowed any further than the first two rungs of the ladder—that they cannot be in the leadership—is ridiculous. It is to deny a pent-up opportunity that all of us who have watched women at work in the Church have seen—and I would not be forgiven if I did not say that among them is my wonderful sister-in-law, who is currently a chaplain for a hospice in Essex and who has served in the Chelmsford diocese for many years as a wonderful priest and member of the Church.
	Let me refer to what we do now, because that is the question. I do not think we should take over the role of the Church of England now, not just because I believe in disestablishment, but because I think it would be inappropriate. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—that we may however want to take control of what happens at the other end of this building in deciding who is admitted to represent the Church of England as bishops. It has long been anomalous that in the House of Lords—the Lords itself is anomalous—one bloc has to be all-male. That seems inappropriate.
	Government and Parliament need to offer their best offices to the Church of England so that the new proposal—which the bishops mercifully have today announced they will make for Synod next year—can receive their support and technical advice and therefore pass both the Synod and this place. The bishops need to know in advance—I pay tribute to other colleagues on
	the Ecclesiastical Committee—that what they come up with will not be tripped up in Parliament, and we need to know in advance that it is compatible with our principles of equality, of which colleagues have spoken around the House.
	The majority of people who go to church in this country are women. The leadership that the country calls for must include the majority of people in Britain, who are women. I hope the Church has learnt its lesson. I have every confidence in the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, who is coming to meet us tomorrow. I hope that by this time next year we will be celebrating not just the change in the Church’s rules, but the beginning of a transformation that will embolden the Church, improve it and increase the effectiveness of the ministry of the Church to proclaim the gospel to everybody, which is best done by everybody who is capable of doing it.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for securing this debate. I am very pleased to be able to take part in it. My Durham constituency is an ecclesiastical and Anglican centre, so this is a matter of great importance for a number of my constituents. I am tempted to spend a few moments just highlighting the beauty and spirituality of Durham cathedral, but I have a feeling that you may rule me out of order if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would, however, recommend that all Members visit the cathedral at some stage.
	It was some considerable time ago—1992, so 20 years—that the General Synod first voted to allow women to become priests. Without legislation to extend this to include bishops, a glass ceiling has been created for women in that their careers in the Church are limited purely by their gender. A number of us hoped that this situation would be rectified in November this year; unfortunately, the General Synod voted no, although narrowly, to women bishops. This is somewhat surprising, given the great advances made by women in the Church of England. The most recent data show that more women priests are being ordained than men—290 women were ordained into the priesthood in 2010, compared with 273 men. Partly because of this growth in the number of women priests, the result in November was particularly devastating, especially when considered alongside the view that has been expressed since—that it could be 2015 before this matter is considered again.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this has been a real blow to a great number of women who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Church. Given that there are some real difficulties in reconciling different views on the apostolic succession and the laying on of hands, is it not absolutely crazy that with ground having been conceded on the issue of ordaining women priests, they cannot then move up through the organisation to become bishops?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. I shall come on in a few moments to the difficulty of finding a compromise other than the one considered in November.
	I am going to argue that the Synod needs to reconsider its decision as a matter of urgency. This time, it will I hope come up with the right answer, which is to allow women to become bishops. The change needed is really a simple one. All it needs is the simple repeal of the clause in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 that states:
	“Nothing in this Measure shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop.”
	As I say, this simply needs to be repealed.
	Unlike some Members, I think that because the Church is established, this is a matter for Parliament. What I want, however, is for the Church to resolve the matter first. It seems to me particularly important for it to do so. I also think we have to recognise that the Church has had a pretty long time to do that—[Interruption.] Yes, a very long time to do it. The specific Measure before the Synod in November had been considered for five years, during which many legislative committees had brought together members of the General Synod who supported women bishops and those who opposed them, but no agreement other than the compromise before the Synod in November was agreed. If those five years of talks did not reach any other conclusion, prolonging a decision further is unlikely to get any other one put in front of the Synod. This suggests that action simply needs to be taken now. As the campaign group WATCH—Women and the Church—highlighted, this creates a difficulty. Those who support women bishops require women to be bishops on a par with their male colleagues, with no legal no-go areas. Those who will not accept women bishops require legal separation from women bishops.
	As I have said before, I think that if another compromise were sought it would prove elusive, and that it would be better to consider how a general Measure supporting women who wish to become bishops could proceed. I should like that to happen quickly, because a number of constituents have written to me about the matter. Although I knew that there was a very strong Christian community in Durham, I was surprised by the number of letters that I received and the anger that was expressed in them. Perhaps I should start with the Bishop of Durham himself, the Right Rev. Justin Welby. He is soon to become Archbishop of Canterbury, and I think that Durham’s loss will be the country’s gain.

Frank Field: Is it not extraordinary that, although he has already been appointed, he will not take up his post until Easter? Would it not be a good move for the Synod, having elected a new leader, to put him in post speedily, particularly when he has a reforming programme to accomplish?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: That is an interesting point, and if I were not about to lose a really wonderful Bishop of Durham I might well agree with my right hon. Friend. In this instance, however, we are in no hurry to get rid of our bishop, and I am quite pleased that he will be with us until Easter. I suppose that it might be to the greater good for him to move earlier, but I am sticking to my position, which is that we need his ministry in Durham for as long as possible, and certainly until we have someone else to take his place.
	I was about to tell the House what the Bishop of Durham said, which I think is very important. He said:
	“It is a very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters.”
	I also heard from Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, a vicar at Belmont and Pittington in my constituency. She said that she felt
	“rejected by the church that accepted me for ministry”
	but was not prepared to consecrate her as a bishop.
	A letter from Richard Cheetham, a constituent of mine, is typical of many that I have received. He said:
	“I find the whole thing a huge insult to women priests, and to women in general. Women can rise to the top positions in industry, commerce, education, and politics. Therefore I find the decision not to allow women bishops totally unacceptable.”

Ben Bradshaw: Is it not testimony to the strength of these women—and, indeed, that of other people who have been rejected by the Church—that they carry on, and stick with it? The strength of their faith, and their dedication to it, must be far greater than that of their male colleagues, given the way they stick it out, with good grace and good humour.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, I do not think that I received any letters or telephone calls from people saying that they were considering resigning, which, as my right hon. Friend says, is extraordinary in the circumstances.
	I absolutely agree with Mr Cheetham and with others to whom I have spoken and who have written to me. The decision not to allow women to become bishops seems particularly absurd when we know that women priests and their ministry have been so very successful.
	A recent article in The Observer highlighted the story of the Rev. Philippa Boardman, vicar of St Paul Old Ford church. When she arrived at her London church in the mid-1990s, St Paul Old Ford was derelict, its Victorian structure rotting away quietly after a decade of neglect. Under the watch of the enterprising new vicar, however, it was born again. It reopened as a thoroughly modern church-cum-community centre, with a gym in the attic and a café in the entrance. It also provides Zumba, WeightWatchers and after-school clubs. Last year, in recognition of her efforts, Ms Boardman was appointed MBE, and many members of the church community believe that she is also a prime candidate to become a bishop. Without change, however, that cannot even be considered.
	I think that most of us who have women priests in our constituencies know what a fantastic job they do. In my constituency, Margaret Masson does a tremendous amount of community work. She sets up schemes to address the needs of older people, and she is at the heart of her community. I could mention others, too, but I will not take up the House’s time. My point is that women do a fantastic job at all levels in the Church. It is unfair that they are not able to become women bishops, and I do not think it is good for the Church either.
	James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, said the Church would collapse if all the female priests in place now were somehow removed. Other Churches have made progress with this issue, and perhaps we have something to learn from the Church elsewhere. Some 29 female Anglican bishops have been consecrated worldwide. In
	many of the countries where that has happened, such as Canada, the USA and Australia, those who will not accept female bishops are offered provision informally and pastorally.
	If we were to accept this approach, just one simple change would be required: the removal of clause 1(2) from the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993. I hope the Synod will consider that. I urge the Church to reconvene the Synod and reconsider its decision, and to allow all of us to benefit from the ministry of women bishops in the future.

Geoffrey Cox: Having listened to the right hon. Members for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), and having heard before from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), I am filled with envy. I feel a little like the boy with his nose pressed against the pie shop window, looking inside at the good things within and feeling very excluded. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Exeter and those who have spoken in his support understand how fortunate they are. For them a decision on the issue—which has now confronted the Church for a number of decades—as to the acceptability, doctrinally and theologically, of women priests and women bishops is so obviously, decisively and clearly reached on one side.
	They are extraordinarily fortunate to be able to reach a conclusion of such a decided kind, because some of us cannot do so, even after very careful and patient reflection. I fully respect the conclusion and the sincerity of the right hon. Member for Exeter, having listened to him today, and I ask him to accept that some of us cannot reach the same conclusion with the same decisive finality. Those of us who read the Bible and listen to what ancient texts say and hear the words of the Roman Catholic Church find it hard to conclude that the steps the Anglican Church has taken over recent decades are necessarily the right ones.
	I know that the sentiments I express today are shared by many. I have received letters from people who feel the same way. Many of us also acknowledge that the decision taken some years ago to admit women priests to the Anglican Church is irreversible and the march of relentless logic will probably mean there should also be women bishops. However, that minority of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke so critically includes many people of sincere Christian faith who wrestle daily with their consciences on this issue, and who appreciate with humility that there are hundreds or thousands—or possibly tens of thousands—represented on these Benches here today who have reached a contrary conclusion to that which their own conflict on this subject leads them to reach, and who feel that this is a matter so free from intellectual difficulty that they can reach such a conclusion.
	In the presence of that, this minority feel some sense of humility but simply cannot bring themselves to dismiss the tradition of 2,000 years, the convictions of the Roman Catholic Church and the convictions of many millions of people around the world with the ease and facility that the right hon. Gentleman does. That they feel sincerely, I ask him to accept.
	The right hon. Gentleman was critical, probably rightly, of the fact that when people divide into the trenches, as they have on this issue, mistrust breaks out. He expressed concern that the negotiating position of the conservative wing of the Church is not held sincerely and these people do not wish to reach a conclusion. I can talk only about the letters I have received from the laity in the rural areas I represent. Many of them agreed with the position that he takes, but some did not. Those letters do not resonate with entrenched obstructionism; they seek a way forward. They sound with a sense of authentic pain. They are from people trying to grapple with an issue on which they realise they are in the minority, and they are seeking a way forward. It will test the leadership—

Susan Elan Jones: rose —

Geoffrey Cox: Not just now. It will test the leadership of the Church, and I hope that this new leader of the Church is the God-sent thing he appears to be. I hope that he will be able to bring along the minority, among whose number I count myself, because the last thing that that minority wishes to do is see the Church they love riven by this issue. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman, and others in the House who, understandably, support so passionately their view, to entertain Christian compassion for the minority, who do not seem to have much of a voice in the debate today, nor had much of a voice in the statement the other day.

Ben Bradshaw: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Cox: I will. I should give way to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) first, but I will do that in a moment, if I may.

Ben Bradshaw: I assume from what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying—I hope he will forgive me if I am wrong—that the safeguards that already exist regarding women priests have kept him, and many others who did not and still do not want women priests, in the Church of England. What does he think was not adequate with the concessions being offered to the opponents of women bishops that would have prevented them from staying in the Church of England?

Geoffrey Cox: I will come to that, because I intend to tackle the specifics in a moment. First, it is important that I set out the background to the remarks I intend to make, because I am approaching this, a matter relating to the Church, as beyond political propaganda and the crudity of political discourse; the things we are dealing with are precious to us all. They are part of our common bond of spiritual inheritance. For those who believe in the Church as I believe in the Church—an essential part of the fabric of our constitution that I cannot envisage ever being without—the fate of the Anglican Church is a crucial issue. We need to approach it in a spirit that tries to unite people, not divide them. The rules by which the decision of the Synod was reached the other day were created for a reason. Constitutionally weighted majorities are invariably introduced around the world, not only in the Church, but in countries, to protect minority opinions. That is why the Synod introduced the rule. People may argue with it now. They may say,
	“It is too high. It is unrealistically high. It puts into the hands of those who do not seek agreement too powerful a weapon”, but two-thirds majorities—weighted majorities—are there for a reason.
	So fundamental a change after 2,000 years of tradition should receive a weighted majority. We cannot complain. We should not point the finger of accusation at the Church because those who conscientiously could not agree exercised their right not to do so. The rules were put in place by the Church so that decisions of this magnitude and gravity should be taken only with the overwhelming support of the Church; just because it failed to reach that threshold and the bar was not passed according to that majority, we should not complain. We should not say to the Church, “You have failed to do your duty.” The constitutional threshold was there for a reason: to ensure that when this change or any similar change on so fundamental a matter was introduced, it carried the overwhelming weight of the Church.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who spoke a moment ago and is no longer in his place, that it is inevitable that we shall have women bishops. The question is only how and when, but we must entertain the patience to allow the Church to make that decision on its own, for it will surely do so. We should not bully it or exercise pressure on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will forgive me for saying that although he says he did not do so, when I listened to him in the urgent question the other day, he seemed to go perilously close—I will not say to bullying, because that would be unfair—to putting pressure on the Church. We have 2,000 years of tradition and we have been discussing the question of women bishops for 40. That is not long set against 2,000 years.
	We should have the patience and the compassion to allow the Church to work this out on its own. For my part, I daily see the extraordinary devotion and dedication of women priests in my constituency. I am humbled by their dedication. I see them serve remote rural parishes and fight for their communities. I see the good that they do and I grapple with this question of whether we should have had women priests and have women bishops. I try to persuade myself that we should and I am acquiescent in the inevitability that it should happen—resigned. Perhaps I acknowledge too that the doubts I have on that score are wrong, but I simply ask that those who are so fortunate as to have such conviction on this subject to understand that this conflict is serious. It is perhaps more serious than anything in politics, because it affects one’s Christian faith. That is why I urge the House to pause before it takes the step of weighing in to determine this issue on behalf of the Church. Let us allow the Church, guided we must believe by God, to reach this decision on its own in its own time. I believe it will do so.

Tony Baldry: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Geoffrey Cox: No.
	If we have to wait until 2015, will it be so bad a thing?

Diana Johnson: Yes, it will be for those women.

Geoffrey Cox: I accept that those women will have to wait for another two or three years, but I cannot bring myself to believe that that is the presiding imperative set against the harmony and unity of the Church. Although I respect the work that they do, I repeat that I do not seek to hold out—

Tony Baldry: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Geoffrey Cox: No, I will not.

Tony Baldry: rose —

Geoffrey Cox: No, not now.
	Let me make it clear that I do not seek to prevent this step, but merely to argue that we should allow the Church to reach this conclusion and to heal itself on its own.
	I repeat: it is no use complaining because a constitutional majority threshold was not reached. The liberals in the House and those in the House who believe in constitutionalism have no right to point the finger at the Church and say that somehow its systems are defective. That constitutional majority was not reached. It was set in place for good reason, to ensure that the whole Church, or as much of it as possible, was taken with the decision.
	In 1998, the Lambeth conference resolved that those who could not bring themselves to accept the existence of women priests or bishops should nevertheless have rules created for them that allowed them to exist in the highest degree of communion with the Anglican Church. In 1993, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Exeter serves, accepted that rules should be created in perpetuity for those who took that view. We cannot break those promises but, equally, I agree with him that those who are on the conservative side must negotiate with sincerity. They must not set the bar so high that it is unacceptable to the majority. I appeal to those who have the good fortune to be in the majority to be tender towards those who are in the minority.

Tony Baldry: Before my hon. and learned Friend concludes may I redirect him to answer the question that was put to him by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)? What was it about the Measure, which had the overwhelming support of the archbishops and the House of Bishops, the vast majority of the House of Clergy and a clear majority in the House of Laity, that my hon. and learned Friend found objectionable?

Geoffrey Cox: The Measure had the overwhelming support of the House of Bishops, the overwhelming support of the House of Clergy, but not the two-thirds majority required, in the laying down of which my hon. Friend must have participated. He cannot complain—

Tony Baldry: That does not answer my question.

Geoffrey Cox: I will come to my hon. Friend’s question. He cannot complain, and he certainly, in a genial and bluff manner, should not, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, kick the Church into adopting a view that he represents when, in fact, the constitutional
	majority was not reached. That is the rule by which the Church agreed that the decision should be made. To begin to bully the Church into taking action to follow his convictions is wrong and unrepresentative of the Church as a whole.
	To come to my hon. Friend’s question, first, the code that is supposed to exist was never written. How on earth can we vote something through, expecting protective measures to be written in future? Why did the Church not create the code, in draft at least, so that members such as me would be able to read it? It was not written. Secondly, there is an existing protection for Church councils to be consulted, including councils that have taken the view that they ought to be excluded from the jurisdiction in which women priests celebrate the Eucharist. The priest must consult the Church council before an invitation is extended to a woman to celebrate the Eucharist. That protection is to be removed under the current provision. How can we expect those on the other side, already feeling bruised as a minority and feeling that the Church does not necessarily want them—that may be the case, but it is certainly not the publicly professed view of the Church—to have confidence in Measures that are not written and which remove existing protections?
	My hon. Friend asked for another example. As I understand it, if a Church council writes a letter of request asking to be excluded from the dominion of a particular bishop, a priest is able to veto that request. That does not give confidence to those parishes where a majority feel that they do not wish to be ministered to by a woman bishop. It cannot give confidence that they will be able to live according to their consciences.
	I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury three examples, and I hope that he will deal with them. First, the code was never written, so one is asked to accept a series of protective measures that have not even been given proper detail. Secondly, an existing protection is removed—these are only examples—and thirdly, the priest in charge can veto the Church council’s view on the dominion of the female bishop.
	I say again that I have no wish to engage in expressing divisive or entrenched views. I accept that women bishops will come. As for my doubts on this score, perhaps I will find that I am wrong when I see the good that they do and the astonishing devotion of some that I know. I hope that I am wrong. I am willing to be wrong, and willing to accept that I am. I profoundly hope that others of my persuasion will come round to the idea, and that the Church’s unity can be maintained. I simply ask my hon. Friend for some patience. I know that he and others have been patient for a long time.

Lyn Brown: For 1,700 years.

Geoffrey Cox: Yes, I know, but we are talking about a minority. The change will come; I ask only for a little further patience, so that we can get the settlement right, and so that those thousands of people who are, as I am, in a state of uncertainty and doubt, can be brought along.
	I ask hon. Members to contemplate what it must mean for a member of the Church, who is brought up to it, celebrates it daily, and loves it as so many thousands of us do, to feel that the Church is leaving us behind, and moving away from us. I know that there are hon. Members who disagree and do not feel like that, but
	others do. Imagine how it must feel. We are wrestling to come to the conviction that other Members have reached.
	[Interruption.] 
	I can only say to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is commenting from a sedentary position, that I feel that I have already exposed far too much of my personal convictions, and have probably trespassed on her patience, but I did so because I believed, having listened to the debate, that this particular voice and body of opinion has not been represented in the House. I realised when I stood that what I said would not be popular, and would attract mirth, perhaps mockery; that some might be impatient with it; and that those on the other side of the debate have waited a long time.
	I only ask that Members see the other point of view, and that the Church be allowed to reach this decision in its own time. I agree with the right hon. Member for Exeter that sincerity is necessary on both sides, and that the majority have come a long way in order to satisfy the concerns of the minority, but I ask for an extra effort. I ask for compassion. I ask for Christian patience.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It may be helpful to hon. Members who have yet to speak in the debate if I set out the clear time constraints. The debate will end at 8.20 pm. I need to allow time for a number of speakers, so the wind-ups will start at 10 minutes to 8. There are five Members left to speak, and I intend to make sure that all of them get in. Rather than apply a time limit, I ask each Member to take less than 10 minutes—some may feel that they do not need 10 minutes—so that we can conclude the debate in an orderly fashion.

Helen Goodman: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing the agreement of the Backbench Business Committee to holding this exceptionally important debate.
	I thought it would be appropriate to wear purple in this debate. I joined the Movement for the Ordination of Women 30 years ago and I found November’s Synod decision worse than disappointing. It is totally disgraceful that the whole of my adult life has seen this endless struggle over the position of women in the Church of England. I feel deeply sorry for women clergy up and down the country. In my own constituency I think of Jane Grieve, Brenda Jones, Linda Gough—fabulous women doing fabulous work. Even if they are not called to be bishops, the decision is demeaning and demoralising. Furthermore, as other hon. Members have said, women still play a huge role in most parishes among the laity. I am sure women are the majority of the laity in the Church of England.
	However, my greatest concern is for the mission of the Church. This country faces many challenges where the Church’s unique voice needs to be heard—how to bind fractured communities, how to address alienation and the inexorable rise of consumerism, and how to protect the natural environment. Who will listen to a Church when it behaves as Synod behaved last month? How much more time and energy must we spend on this question?
	We have all heard from many members of the public and members of the Church in recent weeks. Some of those who are opposed seem to believe that Members of Parliament are, by and large, in favour of consecrating women bishops because they see it as a justice issue, rather than a theological issue. Of course, some of the people who are opposed to women bishops think this will give the Church a new lease of life, and that is the last thing they want, but that is not, by and large, the view that we have heard.
	On the concerns about theological issues, the views were very well represented by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). In the light of what he said, it is clear that we need to go right back to the beginning of the argument. Genesis 1 verse 27 says:
	“So God created humankind in his image,
	in the image of God he created them;
	male and female he created them”,
	and the passage goes on to say:
	“Be fruitful and multiply”.
	The notes in my Bible, which is the New Revised Standard Version—an ecumenical Bible recognised for use by the Protestants, the Catholics and the eastern Orthodox—say:
	“Together men and women share the task of being God’s stewards on earth.”
	I would like to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman how the passage ends:
	“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”
	Now let me whizz forward 3,000 years to the New Testament. I take my understanding from the much maligned and misunderstood St Paul, who wrote in one of his letters to the Corinthians that in Christ there is neither male nor female but all are one in the spirit.
	Since when, I ask those who are opposed to the consecration of women as bishops, has justice not been a theological issue? The justice tradition is the glory of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament we see it radically re-envisioned. Let us take, for example, the beatitudes, the roles given to the three Marys, the Magnificat—
	“he hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden . . . scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts . . . exalted the humble and meek.”

Lyn Brown: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is going to get to John, chapter 4, in which Jesus reveals himself for the first time to the Samaritan woman. It is not to a man, or to one of the 12 nominated disciples, but to someone who was possibly the lowest of the low, a Samaritan and a woman to boot. For me, that speaks volumes about the equality of the New Testament message.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend gives another excellent example from the New Testament.
	The legislation in Synod foundered on the adequacy or otherwise of the guarantees offered to those opposed to change. I cannot accept their self-description as a vulnerable and oppressed minority. In modern Britain, people have a choice about whether to stay or go. They do not face being burnt at the stake. If they are excluded,
	it is self-exclusion. There has been so much fence-sitting in the Church to keep a minority on board that the fence is now collapsing under the weight.
	I also know that many people believe that it is extremely important to maintain the historic coalition of the Elizabethan settlement. I remind the House what Richard Hooker, one of the great theologians of that era, did and said. His argument was essentially that it was not about keeping everyone happy in the short term, but about having a coherent polity and coherent Church governance. That seems to me to be absolutely relevant to the position we find ourselves in today. All these exceptions, constraints, conditions and flying bishops are making the situation excessively complex. It would be impossible to know where authority lies in the Church or to give a clear picture of our theological view of the role of men and the role of women.
	Hooker also said—I think it is relevant—that because things were ordained by God does not necessarily mean that they were ordained for all time. He felt that we should use our God-given reason to tell which points of scripture had what kind of authority. When the old way, which might have been right in its own time, might be wrong now, he said there was “some new-grown occasion”. I believe that we are now in a new-grown occasion. Of course growth can be painful—we all know that from personal experience—but it is also essential.
	By far the best outcome would be for the Church itself to resolve the issue quickly. I know that Bishop Justin wants to address it straightaway, and I endorse everything my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) said about his capacities. It is right that the Church should resolve the issue itself, but if it cannot, that will inevitably raise profound questions about the established Church’s relationship with the state. I will put it simply. What do we want? Women bishops. When do we want them? Now.

John Howell: I should begin by declaring an interest, one that is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a church organist. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) rather surprised me last night when he told me that he has left in his will a stipend—hopefully a sizeable one—for me to play at his memorial service when the dread day comes.
	The argument has been about Church governance and whether we should let the Church get on with it or take an interest in it ourselves. I am encouraged by the speeches that have been made, because they will allow the church to make its way through to achieving a resolution. When I was asked, prior to Synod, what members attending it should do, I told them to beware of the House of Laity; its members are representatives, not delegates, just as we are, and will vote as they wish. I said that because there is nothing unspiritual in recognising that the Church of England has to indulge in reason and discourse. I pray in aid Richard Hooker, whom the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned. He established that there were three pillars on which the Church of England rested—scripture, tradition and reason. His firm belief was that God’s purpose can be worked out as much through discourse
	as scripture and tradition, and that it was therefore absolutely right to indulge in that. I am not going to dissent from that view except to say that this has to be worked out at the level of the parishes, not at Synod level.
	I was very much taken by the news that one of my local villages, which has a socking great abbey in the middle of it, but which is quite a small village now, was putting forward a petition to the Bishop of Oxford to try to get in place a simple, smooth process for resolving this issue. Within a few days, 1,500 people, which, by my estimate, is about double the population of the village, had signed the petition and were going to get a move on with it.
	I come from a completely different wing of the Church than my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but I would not dissent one iota from what he said about the way to tackle this and the process that needs to be sorted out.

David Winnick: I speak with some caution on this issue since, as I have mentioned in previous exchanges, I am not involved with the Church of England or with any other religious institution or establishment. Why, then, should I speak in a debate in which everyone except me is a religious believer and a member of some wing of the Church of England? If the Church were not established, I certainly would not speak in the debate. I would take the view that whatever rules a particular religion may have, that is a matter for it, not for me. However, the Church of England is an established religion, and bishops sit in the House of Lords as of right because that has been the custom and practice over a long period.
	Moreover, whatever decision the Church came to, and certainly if it were in favour of women bishops, it would be necessary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said, for Parliament to approve it or otherwise. Therefore, although it appears as though I am an outsider, as a Member of Parliament I am involved, as I was involved 20 years ago when the issue of whether women were to be ordained as priests had to come to the House of Commons. It will not come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for that, and no one said to me, “Keep out of it: it is not a matter for you, you are not a religious believer and you are not involved with the Church of England.”
	I could not disagree more with the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), but I respect what he said. I recognise his viewpoint, and he argued with all the skills that one would expect from a leading barrister. I listened to his eloquence, as I always do, with great interest, while not necessarily, and certainly not on this occasion, agreeing with him.
	What I find so difficult to understand about this controversy is that the principle of women being ordained was accepted, and it has been a fact for 20 years. Inevitably, as a layperson, I must say to myself, “If women are ordained as priests, how on earth can it be argued that there should be a barrier to their promotion to bishop—or indeed to further promotion?”
	The space around the Admission Order Office contains extensive displays depicting the struggle that women waged in order to obtain the parliamentary vote and to
	stand for election. Hon. Members who have not yet seen them might like to do so on their way out. I am sure that all of us, including the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, would agree that tribute should be paid to those women who fought so hard 100 years ago and more, who went to prison and who starved themselves and in some cases actually died for the cause that they believed in. How right they were.
	It was finally conceded at the end of the first world war that the other half of the adult population should have the right to vote and to stand for Parliament, but let us imagine what would have happened if the Government of the day had said, “Yes, you may stand for Parliament and become a Member, but if you are elected, you may go no further. You may not become a Minister.” That would have been illogical, but the issue of women bishops is no less illogical. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon quoted scripture from his wing of the Church, and I understand that, but he himself acknowledged that the principle of women priests had been accepted. This is not a question of whether women should be ordained or not. That has been happening for 20 years and we rightly pay tribute to the contribution that they make, in my constituency and elsewhere, so why on earth should we prevent them from becoming bishops?
	In December 1966, when I represented a different constituency, I had an Adjournment debate on the problems being faced by some black youngsters who were being discriminated against simply because of the colour of their skin. This was before the Race Relations Act was brought in under that Government. I now find myself, nearly half a century later, standing here speaking about discrimination against women. I believe that there should be substantial parliamentary pressure for a change to occur, bit it might come as a surprise to some Members that I do not believe that Parliament should necessarily override the decision of the Church. I want the Church itself to reach the decision. But—and it is an important “but” for most of us—it is necessary that the Church should come to the right decision very quickly. If it does not do so, there will be more and more impatience in the House and certainly outside it for parliamentary action to be taken.
	It would be far better if the Church understood what was needed, and I believe that it does to a large extent. The vote that took place resulted in a two-thirds majority in two of the Houses of the Synod, with the House of Laity nearly achieving one. It has been quite clear from the debate tonight what the feeling of Parliament is on this matter—apart from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon—and if the Church of England as a whole recognises the pressure and the concern that undoubtedly exist in this House, that will be all the more reason for it to come to the right decision promptly. I hope that it will do so.

Diana Johnson: rose —

Barry Gardiner: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry; I am having a senior moment. I call Diana Johnson.

Diana Johnson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate. I should also like to congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing the debate to take place because of the importance of the subject. I want to say at the outset to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) that my comments this evening might not be seen as tender, and that I am very impatient. I am also on the side of the oppressed—in this case, the women in the Church who are being discriminated against.
	The Times this morning carried a report on the 2011 census, which showed that Hull, my home city, had had the largest fall in Christian belief in this country over the past decade, at 16.8%. The row that is going on in the Church over women bishops will just make the established Church’s struggle for relevance even more difficult as it seeks exemptions from the realities of the modern society that it wishes to serve. We all know that women are the mainstay of the Church in communities throughout our land. As has been said many times, the theological argument over women priests—and, therefore, their position in roles of authority—was settled 20 years ago. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), I was involved in that campaign to get women ordained. The argument was won, and since 1992 more than 3,000 women have been ordained as priests, which is a huge success for the Church of England—new wine in old bottles. The next natural step, as many people have said, is to see some of those excellent ordained women priests move into positions of church leadership as bishops.
	Discrimination in the wider community is wrong and prevents the talents and abilities of all from flourishing, so it is important in the established Church that the experience and skills of both men and women are used. The Church should be led by the very best, not just those who happen to be male. As I said during the urgent question to the Second Church Estates Commissioner last month, the stained glass ceiling for women in our Church must go. As a result of the House of Laity being just six votes short of a two-thirds majority on 20 November, the Church of England now stands to be left behind by the society it seeks to serve and made to look outdated, irrelevant and, frankly, eccentric. It also stands to be left behind by the Anglican community around the world.
	I want to remind the House of some of the arguments that have been deployed as to why we should not have women bishops. Some hold the belief that God created man to lead and that women are there to be his obedient helper. They take the view that the Church should be run by Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve. Those in favour of women bishops more commonly draw inspiration from the theological arguments that both men and women were created equal in God’s image. We can also rely on facts that are usually painted out in biblical history. For example, in the early Christian Church, until about 400 AD, there were female priests and it was common for congregations to be led by women.
	Theology and theological debate evolve over time. My celebrated predecessor in Hull, William Wilberforce, fought a 30-year campaign against the slave trade, with
	theological arguments for slavery deployed against him. Theological fundamentalists tried to resist the scientific work on evolution by Charles Darwin and others. Afrikaner theologians also made a case in favour of apartheid. Those who oppose gender equality in the Church often draw on literal, if selective, interpretations of the Bible, and I have heard personally from some such opponents in recent days.
	The House might like to hear just a few of the comments I have received from those whom I call the three wise men. The first said to me:
	“God actually knows better than you”.
	Thanks, Mr Dave Croton—I am only a woman, after all, so what would I know? The second wise man said to me:
	“The language of ‘equality’ seems to me to be profoundly unhelpful in this debate.”
	Thanks, Mr Ian Colson—equality is often “unhelpful” to vested interests. Finally, I was told:
	“How dare you seek to go against the will of Almighty God. Almighty God will hold you to account for what you have said in the day of judgment. Ask his forgiveness and beg for mercy.”
	Thanks, Mr Jonathan Buss—I will take my chances on that one.
	Forward in Faith has produced a briefing that is heavy on public relations advice for how opponents of change should lobby Members of this House on today’s debate. I will quote an example of the quality of its case:
	“We do not, for example, have women in Premier League football teams but this is not seen as a failure in equal opportunities.”
	We are asked to believe that the physical demands of being a bishop are like premiership football—and obviously beyond what women can do. I am not really sure that that is the strongest argument for a team that is fighting relegation.
	I am worried about what will happen next. The decision made by a minority in the House of Laity means that this essential modernisation of the Church of England has potentially been put back another five years, with no guarantee of progress even then. A broad Church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds, even though the vast majority of its members want to see women bishops. Some of those who tell us that they want to see change claim that it must not be rushed. However, this issue has been debated in the General Synod since 2000, so I do not think that the Church can seriously be accused of acting in haste on gender equality.
	So what needs to be done? As long as we have an established Church, Parliament has a role to play in supporting it through its time of crisis. The Church and wider faith communities often seek to inform and inspire our deliberations in politics. It is now time for the Church to pause and reflect on how wide the gap has become between it and the society that it wishes to serve and influence.
	As the established Church is part of the settlement of this country, this House should consider what the decision of the 20 November vote means for the Church’s role in our law making. The Synod’s vote means the entrenchment of the discriminatory nature of the 26 places in the House of Lords that are reserved for bishops who can only be male. Such sexual discrimination would not be allowed to determine membership anywhere else in the Houses of Parliament. In light of the Government’s
	deferral of wider reform of the other place, we have to question the role of the 26 bishops in this Parliament, unless the Church decides to ordain women bishops.
	First, I agree that there should be a moratorium on the appointment of new bishops until this gender discrimination ends. Secondly, if the bishops want to send a clear message that they are engaging seriously with women in the Church, they should end the practice of meeting and voting in private when amending primary legislation, even though their standing orders allow the press and public to be present. Thirdly, it can no longer be right for the Church of England to be allowed exemptions from equalities legislation. We are all meant to be equal before the law, and nobody is above that law.
	I have a message for the many friends who have worked so patiently for so many years to see women bishops. They should take up the fight with added vigour and less willingness to compromise with those who will never accept change and who never compromise themselves. They should seek inspiration from British history. Left to itself, the Church will not restart its slow, uncertain process on women bishops until July 2013. July 2013 will mark 125 years since a group of low-paid, exploited, mainly women workers went on strike at the Bryant and May factory in Bow. They won and changed history. One movement that followed the match girls was the suffragettes. The Church of England would struggle to exist without the voluntary work and good will of women all over the country, so what if the women of the Church of England had their own strike? Perhaps it is true that well behaved women seldom make history.
	In conclusion, the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate has agreed to meet Members of Parliament and I will certainly be there. I hope that the all-male group of bishops will start to work with and listen to senior women in the Church, who have so much to offer. I hope that the House will support the one-clause Bill that I intend to bring forward in the spring to introduce women bishops. I will finish with the words of a former leader of the Labour party, John Smith, who was a man of great faith. He summed up what most women in the Church of England seek:
	“A chance to serve, that is all we ask.”

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call the next speaker, I apologise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), whom I have known for a very long time. I was listening and reflecting on this excellent debate and not paying enough attention to what I should be doing, which is chairing the debate. I apologise that she had to prompt me on whom to call.

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to follow all the speakers in this excellent debate. In particular, I should mention the lecture in divinity from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who chose to wear purple. It is no accident that she represents a constituency called Bishop Auckland.
	I was not born into the Church of England. I was born in Glasgow into a Congregationalist family, where I was privileged to have as my first minister the very first woman minister ever ordained in Scotland, Vera
	Kenmure. It took about nine years before I ventured south of the border, but I remember my first occasion in an English church. I thought, “What a funny lot you English are. You actually allow men to be priests!” I could not believe that a man was standing there in the robes of a minister. It was an image that always struck me as very odd.
	The ministry I received from Vera Kenmure 50 years ago was exceptional, and it was probably what convinced me, from absolute infancy, of the value of women’s ministry in the Church. When I came to England and entered the Anglican Church, after a short period I joined the Movement for the Ordination of Women. In fact, my now wife—she was then my girlfriend—and I joined MOW together.
	The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the first occasion on which a vote was taken on the ordination of women was in 1978. I will never forget that Una Kroll, who led the Movement for the Ordination of Women, listened in silence and in shocked horror to the vitriol that came across in that debate. There was vitriol against women who dared ask to be allowed to serve in their Church, and I remember that at the end of the debate Una Kroll stood up and said, “We asked for bread and you gave us a stone.”
	A year or so later I remember listening to Una on the radio. She was asked whether because of the nature of the debate she still had the vocation and calling to the ministry that she had felt previously. I remember that her voice stuttered and she had obviously not reflected on that point until that moment. She said she was not sure whether she could still say that she felt God’s calling.
	I listened with great care to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and I acknowledge the sincerity of his views. He asked for tolerance, for provision to be made and for understanding, but that tolerance, provision and understanding was not made in 1978 or beyond. My girlfriend became my wife, and as we marched down the aisle, the “War March of the Priests” was our introit—at that point both of us wanted to be ordained as priests in the Church of England. However, because of the nature and vitriol of the debate, many of us felt that we had lost that sense of vocation and that calling. Therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman asks for patience now, he is asking for something that he must accept he and his colleagues in the debate back then did not afford to us.

Geoffrey Cox: First, in 1978 I was 18 and I was not participating in such debates. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that even if what he says is right—I deplore it if it were so and regret it profoundly—that is no excuse, reason or basis for not extending compassion and understanding now. That is simply to compound one sin with another.

Barry Gardiner: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I do not hold him responsible for what happened then or for the loss of vocation that I or many others felt as a result. He is right to say that understanding and provision must be made within the Church now for those who cannot assent to the doctrinal excellence of
	the position that the Church has reached, which is that there is absolutely no distinction between the deaconate, the priesthood and the bishops. That is a fundamental theological principle. There are those who cannot accept it, and they have asked that provision should be made for them. Just as provision was made for those who could not accept the ordination of women in the first place, so it must be made for those who cannot accept the consecration of women bishops. However, that provision has been offered and rejected. It is now time for the Church to put its house in order and press forward with what it knows to be doctrinally accurate. That is why I greatly respected the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland made—she sought to base her arguments in theology.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon talked about the issue that confronts the Church of the consecration of women bishops. That is not the issue that confronts the Church; it is poverty and injustice in the world. This is a sideshow that should not occupy the Church. We should not have to debate it over and over again, year after year. It is nonsense, and it is not what the Church should be about.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spoke powerfully about the lessons from scripture. It seems to me that the fundamental heart of Christian theology is the power and the vision of the resurrection. I do not think anyone in the Church would deny that. Who were the witnesses to the resurrection? Women—it was the women who went into the garden and witnessed the resurrection, at a time when their word had no basis in Judaic law. They could not give testimony in a court, but our Lord had them as his witnesses to the resurrection to bear testimony to the entire world of the essential truth of the Christian faith. If that is not a vote for women to take up their place in the Church, I do not know what is.

Geoffrey Cox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Gardiner: Not at the moment.
	Two or three years ago, on Christmas eve, my wife and I went into our local church to celebrate midnight mass, and there was a woman celebrating. I have to say, she gave one of the worst sermons I had ever heard. It was dreadful. As we got into the car after the service, I turned to my wife and said, “You know, that was really quite inspiring.” She looked at me and said, “Are you mad? That was one of the worst sermons I have ever heard.” I said, “Yes, but just think—25 years ago, could we ever have imagined that we would be sitting in a conservative evangelical parish on Christmas eve listening to a woman priest give just as bad a sermon as any man? That is progress.” We went forward that Christmas eve with a renewed sense of faith, joy and possibility.
	What happened a couple of weeks ago dashed that feeling and made us think, “For goodness’ sake, why can’t we get on with the purpose of the Church?” The purpose of the Church is to serve the world, not to keep looking in on itself. Fundamentally, the Church has made one great mistake in its history. It has always had a fixation with sex instead of love and power instead of service. I pray God that it will put it right quickly.

Kate Green: This evening’s debate has been full of eloquent and incredibly passionate speeches. I pay tribute to everybody who has participated, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who secured the debate. It has been clear this evening and over the past couple of weeks that there is widespread agreement in this House—I accept it is not unanimous, not even this evening—that what was arrived at in General Synod a couple of weeks ago is not acceptable to Parliament. Today’s debate has also highlighted the prevailing view here that the Church should take speedy action to rectify the matter. It is also clear that the mood in this place is that if the Church does not act, Parliament should and will.
	There might be some—my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) referred to this—who see that suggestion as unwarranted interference in the Church’s affairs or as undermining freedom of religion, but the Church of England occupies a special constitutional position as the established Church. That brings with it specific responsibilities, including making the law of the land. As has been noted, 42 diocesan bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual, with 26 permitted to sit at any one time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, surely our Parliament must at every level be reflective of the society it represents. That is not compatible with the reservation of places in our Parliament that could only be open to men. Further, whether we like it or not, Parliament’s role in relation to the Church’s decisions cannot be brushed aside. Although the Church enjoys legislative initiative, decisions of the General Synod must be approved by Parliament. It seems clear that there would be no hope whatever of last month’s decision receiving the approval of this House. A rethink is therefore essential. The Church really has no option, as it has recognised.
	If that threatened uncontained confrontation between Parliament and the mass of Church membership, we might of course be concerned about a brewing political and constitutional crisis. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and others pointed out, it is important to remember that the majority of Church of England members want to see women bishops in the Church. That was the majority vote in all three Houses of the Synod. Only in the House of Laity was the requisite two thirds majority not secured.
	This is not a situation where Parliament is pitted against the will of the majority of Church members. Indeed, many Church members, along with hon. Members today, have highlighted the special value they place on the contribution that women bring to the Church and the priesthood. They argue that it is right that women should also have the opportunity to bring their personal style and quality of leadership to the role of bishop. Those Church members point to the fact that the head of the Church is a woman—and not for the first time in its history. For those who care deeply about the status of the Church of England in the eyes of the country at large, there is regret and concern that the decision to refuse women bishops serves to present the Church as wholly out of step with society and remote.
	The mood here is that action must be taken swiftly. Most hon. Members of this House have made it clear that they would not find it acceptable to wait until 2015
	for the Synod to begin revisiting the matter with a view to moving forward. That urgency also appears to be recognised by the Church. As parliamentarians, we urge the Church to take the most rapid steps to resolve the issue. I particularly hope that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), will be able to enlarge on how the Church might approach that.
	We on the Labour Benches will not accept any solution brought forward by the Synod that entrenches discrimination against women bishops. It will be important that in finding a new solution, the currently exclusively male House of Bishops consults extensively with women in the Church of England—in the clergy, in the House of Laity and, importantly, as hon. Members have said, in the parishes themselves.
	If the General Synod fails to make progress, we on these Benches will support the Government to take the necessary action to ensure that the introduction of women bishops is not held back further by those—a minority—who do not reflect the views of the modern Church. We all hope that that will prove unnecessary, and that the Church itself will find the solution that is sought in this House, in wider society and, indeed, among the majority of members of the Church.

Helen Grant: This has been an important and poignant debate, with powerful contributions and speeches from every single Member across the House who has been able to speak today. I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate and bringing it to us this afternoon and this evening.
	It is clear from what has been said today and from views expressed over the last few weeks that the decision of the General Synod not to allow the appointment of women bishops has generated very strong feelings indeed, among those who wish to see women appointed as bishops in the future and those who want to retain the status quo. As our Prime Minister has made very clear indeed, the Government strongly believe that the time is right to enable the appointment of women bishops. Women already do a tremendous job within the Church of England, including in their role as members of the clergy, so it is very disappointing that a vote taken to address this issue has failed, despite a clear majority of Synod members voting in favour of the proposal.
	The role of discrimination law in this matter has been raised. Let me make it very clear that there is nothing in discrimination law that would prevent the appointment of women bishops, should the Synod vote to do so. It is right and proper that the Church of England, just like any other religious organisation, is not exempt from having to comply with our equality law, namely the Equality Act 2010.
	However, it is also right and proper that certain exceptions exist within the 2010 Act to recognise the specific nature of religious organisations and the unique role they have to play within our society. One such exception exempts religious organisations from certain parts of the Act’s employment provisions, where
	“the employment is for the purposes of an organised religion”.
	This exception is used by a number of religious bodies, allowing Roman Catholics and orthodox Jews, for example, to appoint only men as priests or rabbis. Amending the 2010 Act to remove this exception with the intention of forcing the appointment of women bishops would potentially have effects going far beyond the Church of England alone.

Diana Johnson: I am listening to what the Minister says. In the light of what was said yesterday about the special legislation being brought forward for the Church of England with regard to gay marriage, how does what the Minister has just said fit in with yesterday’s statement?

Helen Grant: The two issues are completely different and unconnected, and should not be conflated.
	Amending that exception would risk seriously affecting the work of various other religious bodies in some extremely sensitive areas. In any case, our law enables women bishops to be appointed; that is not a stumbling block here.
	Some Members have pointed out today that changing discrimination law is not the only option. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that, in theory, it would be open to Parliament to legislate on Church of England matters without the involvement of the General Synod, for instance by amending canon law to require the appointment of women bishops. However, Parliament and Church work well together on so many matters. We would not want to disturb that balance by making impulsive changes, given the special relationship that exists between the state and the Church of England as the established Church of our nation.
	The Government have made their views very clear on the matter of women bishops: we would warmly welcome their appointment. However, we respect the independence of religious organisations, and it is right that decisions of this sort about internal structure are ultimately matters for the Church of England itself to decide.
	I particularly thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), for his earnest remarks about the position in which the Church finds itself today. I am heartened by his acknowledgement of the difficulties and emotions that the General Synod’s vote has generated and his determination to ensure that the Church resolves the issue as soon as possible, and I look forward to hearing from him again in a moment.

Tony Baldry: I think that the whole House will be very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate, and to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for the way in which he introduced it. We owe a debt of gratitude to all who have spoken today, genuinely and with integrity and honesty, expressing a strong desire to ensure that we can collectively find the best solution for the Church.
	The Church of England is a national Church. It is a Church for the nation, or it is nothing. It is a Church that exists in every parish in the country. It is a Church to which everyone can look for spiritual and pastoral guidance. It is the Church of Remembrance Sunday, it is the Church of funerals and bereavement and of joy,
	happiness and celebration, and it is also the Church that marks disasters when they occur. Because it is a Church for the whole nation, it needs to reflect the values of the whole nation.
	I think that everyone within the Church of England recognises that until we can resolve the issue of women bishops, we will not be able fully to fulfil our role as a national Church, and we will not be fully able to concentrate on mission and growth, which must surely be the fundamental purpose of the Church. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), there are many issues that the Church must address, such as justice and poverty, from which we will continue to be distracted as long as we focus on the issue of women bishops.
	After the vote in General Synod, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:
	“a Church that ordains women as priests but not as bishops is stuck with a real anomaly, one which introduces an unclarity into what we are saying about baptism and about the absorption of the Church in the priestly self-giving of Jesus Christ.”
	Earlier this week, the House of Bishops met at Lambeth palace and considered the implications of the recent rejection by General Synod of the legislation to enable women to become bishops. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), and others who perfectly properly have said that women should be involved in the further deliberations, that it was absolutely appropriate that at those discussions with the House of Bishops, the House of Bishops benefited from the participation of Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, Christine Hardman who chairs the House of Clergy, Dr Paula Gooder and Mrs Margaret Swinson, all of whom are senior women in the Church of England who had all previously served on the steering committee or a vision committee for the legislation.
	The House of Bishops rightly started—as almost every contributor to this debate has done—by expressing gratitude and appreciation for the ministry of ordained women in the Church of England. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to women priests, deacons, archdeacons, canons and deans in the Church of England for what they do in rural areas, inner cities, hospitals and prison chaplaincies throughout the realm. Without them, the Church of England would have considerable difficulty in reaching, and ministering to, every part of the nation. The House of Bishops recorded its sadness that recent events should have left so many women in the Church feeling undermined and undervalued. I hope that if nothing else results from this debate, a message will go out to all women clergy in the Church of England that they are valued and appreciated by Parliament for the work they do for us all and for our community.
	The House of Bishops acknowledged the profound and widespread anger, grief and disappointment felt by so many in the Church of England and beyond. I suspect that many Members will have been surprised by the wider resonance General Synod’s decision had in the community as a whole. In our constituencies, people who one would not normally have expected to take an interest in the Church of England came to us to express concern and disappointment at the decision.
	The House of Bishops clearly agreed that the current situation was unsustainable for everyone, whatever their convictions. I was grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) for making it clear that the view of everyone from all parts of the Church is that the current situation is unsustainable, because I think everyone acknowledges that in due course there will be women bishops. Indeed, General Synod agreed in 2008 that there should be women bishops.
	The House of Bishops expressed its continuing commitment to enabling women to be consecrated as bishops and, I am glad to say, it intends to have fresh proposals to put before General Synod at its next meeting in July. This is not an issue that can be parked. This is not an issue that, as we lawyers would say, can just be adjourned generally to some other time in the future. It has got to be worked at until a solution is found.
	I am glad to say that early next year the House of Bishops will be organising meetings, at which it intends to involve large numbers of lay and ordained women, to discuss how women might more regularly contribute to the Church, and further action will be taken in order to avoid any delay in proposing new legislation. The House of Bishops has also set up a working group drawn from all three Houses of Synod. Its membership, which is to be determined by the archbishops, will be announced before Christmas. That group will arrange facilitated discussions with a wide range of people of a variety of views in the week beginning 4 February next year, when General Synod was due to meet. I very much hope that all right hon. and hon. Members in the House tomorrow will take the opportunity at 9.30 am of going to the Moses Room in the other place to listen to the Bishop of Durham, the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, because they will hear directly from him, as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, his clear and determined commitment that the Church of England will resolve this issue itself as soon as it can.
	The House of Bishops will have an additional meeting in February, immediately after those discussions, and expects to settle at its May meeting the elements of a new legislative package to come to Synod in July. There has been, on occasions, some criticism of the bishops, so may I just say that the House of Bishops voted overwhelmingly in support of there being women bishops in the Church of England? The bishops have sought to give the greatest possible leadership in what is, after all, an Episcopal Church, where the bishops are meant to lead. The House of Bishops has been doing all it can, with God’s good grace, to give that leadership and will continue to do so.
	The House of Bishops also made a number of observations that have been reflected in this evening’s debate. It concluded that in future for a Measure to succeed and command assent it will require much greater simplicity. If I may, I will write to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon; I do not want to have a fight now, because that is not in the spirit of this evening’s debate. I can say, however, that the draft code of practice was published earlier this year and there are very good reasons for the provisions to which he drew attention. However, his point illustrated that the whole thing had become so complicated on the protections that nobody was quite sure who was being protected, against what and by whom. I thought, as a member of General Synod, that one of the most moving
	speeches there was made by a female member of the clergy from the diocese of Oxford, who asked, “Why is it that the Church needs to be protected from me? What is it about me?” That went to something of the heart of some of the issues we had to resolve. Some of the protections had become so complicated, so I think that much greater simplicity will be required.
	However, I think it was genuinely helpful that my hon. and learned Friend spoke in this debate, doing so with great sincerity, because I agree that it is also important, as the House of Bishops made clear, that there needs to be a clear embodiment of the principle articulated in the 1998 Lambeth conference that both those who dissent from and those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are loyal Anglicans. No one is saying that one form of Anglicanism is better than another; in so far as it can be achieved, everyone needs to be involved in this.
	However, an important point made by both Front-Bench teams, and by many in this debate, is that we cannot square the circle by creating second-class women bishops. If we are going to have women bishops—everyone has agreed that we are going to have them—they have in every regard to be treated the same as, and have the same powers, rights, privileges and disciplines as, their male counterparts. One cannot have a category of second-class women bishops or in some way create a church within a Church to accommodate this matter. When I was first appointed as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I went to General Synod at York in 2010 and said, “I need to tell General Synod that if and when a Measure comes to Parliament, it will not get through if it is creating second-class women bishops. This is not whipped business and there is no way in which we will get a Measure through Parliament if there are to be second-class women bishops.” Although of course we need to recognise and seek to involve and include all the traditions, we cannot square the circle in that way.
	The House of Bishops also agreed that there must be a broad-based measure of agreement about the shape of the legislation in advance of the beginning of the actual legislative process. The House of Bishops endorsed the view of the Archbishops Council, which had met the week before, that the Church of England must now resolve this issue through its own processes as a matter of great urgency. Some voices this evening, quite understandably, have suggested that if the Church of England does not act, Parliament might need to. It is my earnest prayer that over the coming months the Church of England can and will demonstrate that it can resolve this issue itself.
	I have no doubt that there are those in the Church of England who will have heard the voices of people who are not just senior Members of this House but senior churchmen. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is a very distinguished member of the Church of England and chairs a number of relevant committees and when he finds it necessary to present Bills to the House on the nomination of bishops to the other place, the Church of England should take account of that and listen. These are not enemies of the Church of England—everyone who has spoken in the debate is a friend and supporter of the Church of England who wants it to succeed. I am quite sure that it will listen to what Parliament has said collectively, which will ensure that the Church of England, House of Bishops and General Synod will address the issue with urgency.
	If any right hon. or hon. Lady or Gentleman has any concerns about that, I invite them to come and listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate tomorrow. They will hear from the Bishop of Durham a very clear message that there is determination to ensure that there are women bishops in the Church of England at the earliest possible moment.

Ben Bradshaw: With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker. I shall be very brief. I sincerely thank our colleagues, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, for a worthwhile and quality debate. In particular, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). It was very important that the dissenting voice was heard and it made for a much better debate. We had some wonderful contributions and it would be invidious of me to single anybody out.
	I was very pleased by the contributions made by those on both Front Benches. It is very nice to see the Culture Secretary in her place, as she has come to listen without taking part. That is noted and, I hope, appreciated by Members. Last but not least, I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). We could not wish for a better Second Church Estates Commissioner. If anybody can help Parliament and the Church together through this impasse, it is he, and I wish him well.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Church of England Synod vote on women bishops.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118( 6 )),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) (No. 2) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed  to .

STandards and Privileges

Ordered,
	That Matthew Hancock, Oliver Heald and Julie Hilling be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr Robert Buckland, Mr Christopher Chope and Fiona O’Donnell be nominated.—(Mr Syms.)

PETITIONS

Wild Land and Wild Places

Glyn Davies: The wild land and wild places of Britain have never been under as much threat as they are today from general development associated with increasing population, and particularly from the proliferation of onshore wind farms. The John Muir Trust is a growing and successful organisation that campaigns to protect wild places and has collected the names of 6,145 petitioners calling for the extension of national park boundaries or the creation of new
	national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to ensure improved environmental protection for the most valuable areas of wild land in Britain.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of citizens of the UK,
	Declares that the Petition ers support the John Muir Trust’ s call to extend National Park Boundaries, or put in place new National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to ensure improved environmental protection for the best areas of wild land.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend National Park boundaries, or to put in place new National Parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty as called for by the John Muir Trust.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P001147]

Live Animal Exports

Laura Sandys: My local community in South Thanet has had to endure the live animal export trade for 18 months. We have had all sorts of emergencies in our port, which is not equipped to sustain that trade. We have unfortunately suffered the slaughter of 45 sheep on the portside, after they were unloaded in an unsuitable area, causing many of them to break their legs. A ram was shot on board a lorry and then dragged out, after its horns were broken due to lack of space. A whole transportation had to return to its starting pointing in Northamptonshire without unloading the animals as the lorries were not fit for travel. A thousand of my constituents want to ensure that the House understands the strength of opinion in my constituency.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[ The Petition of the people of Thanet,
	Declares  that the Petitioners believe that the export of live animals is an outdated and unnecessary practice; that over the last year, the UK has seen the number of animals 
	 being exported from our shores rise significantly; that the live exports trade has moved to the Port of Ramsgate and that the Petitioners believe that the majority of residents are vehemently opposed to the practice given the undue stress caused to the animals through long periods of travel.
	The  Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring a halt to the export of live animals from the UK, ensure that animals are slaughtered as close to point of origin as practicable, and reduce the number of hours an animal is allowed to travel to a maximum of eight.
	And  the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P001148]

Live Animal Exports

Sarah Newton: The sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) are shared by many people around the country, including in my constituency. I have the honour of formally presenting on behalf of the residents of Truro and Falmouth a petition in identical terms.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[ The  Petition of residents of Truro and Falmouth,
	Declares  that the Petitioners believe that the export of live animals is an outdated and unnecessary practice; that over the last year, the UK has seen the number of animals being exported from our shores rise significantly; further that the live exports trade has moved to the Port of Ramsgate and that the Petitioners believe that the majority of residents are vehemently opposed to the practice given the undue stress caused to the animals through long periods of travel.
	The  Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring a halt to the export of live animals from the UK, ensure that animals are slaughtered as close to point of origin as practicable, and reduce the number of hours an animal is allowed to travel to a maximum of eight.
	And  the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P001150]

GREEN WASTE (CONTAMINATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Bob Russell: The nation owes a debt of gratitude to its metal detector enthusiasts. As I will explain, individually and collectively they have identified a serious environmental disaster that must be averted.
	At first glance, the concept of spreading garden waste across farmland seems to be an excellent idea—more “green” than burying it in landfill sites. The idea has been taken up with enthusiasm by councils across the country, encouraged by a combination of financial incentives and regulations to reduce, if not eliminate, landfill. Indeed, local authorities, spurred on by Government targets, compete against one another to see who can collect the most recycling materials. In principle, that is a worthy objective, but it has led to unintended consequences in the collection of so-called green waste from gardens. Once households had their own compost heaps. I still do. That is one basic we should go back to.
	It is those serious, environmentally damaging consequences that I shall highlight this evening, in the hope that action will be taken with immediate effect by central and local government to prevent any further damage to the soil and water courses as a result of the contamination caused by discarded materials mixed in with what is often wrongly described as green waste and spread on food-producing fields.
	I was first alerted to this worrying situation on 7 June this year, when a constituent, Mr Stuart Elton, attended my advice bureau. Metal detecting is his hobby. What he told me appalled me. Nowadays, when he and fellow metal detecting enthusiasts, with the permission of the land owner, go out looking for buried treasures from the past they are more likely to find a wide variety of metal, cut, crushed and mashed among the rotting green waste. That is not so much a needle in a haystack, but rather the contents of a scrapyard strewn across fields.
	That led me to write to the president of the National Council for Metal Detecting, Mr John Wells. I was keen to learn more about the matter, both from a metal-detecting perspective and because of the obvious pollution and environmental consequences that my constituent had drawn to my attention. In due course, Mr Wells travelled from his home in Coventry to have a meeting with me at the House of Commons, which in turn led me to apply for tonight’s debate.
	There was a time when the world of archaeology was variously sniffy or even hostile to those engaged in metal detecting, claiming that such activity was harmful to archaeological sites and discoveries. Quite often landowners were oblivious to what was going on. That is no longer the case. The National Council for Metal Detecting and its members have an excellent record of partnership working with all interested parties and have been responsible for some breathtaking finds that have added to the sum of our knowledge of the past. As I represent the first capital of Roman Britain, I am delighted to report that in Colchester we have an excellent metal detectors group, whose members epitomise best practice. It is currently full, with 100 members, and has
	a waiting list. As recently as 30 November, its chairman, Mrs Sue Clarke, was reported in the Colchester
	Daily Gazette
	as saying:
	“Colchester is a great place to be part of a metal-detecting group. There is so much history around here. There is never a boring rally.”
	The term “rally” in this context refers to members, with the permission of a landowner, going as a group to search for artefacts.
	To get back to the subject of my debate—the consequences of the contamination of green waste—I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the serious environmental and pollution issues literally cannot be covered up any longer. Not everyone in the green waste industry is up to the job, whether we are talking about deliberate deceit or failure to comply with the strict regulations. The Minister’s briefing will, I trust, include accounts of people being prosecuted for spreading pollutants and other contaminated material along with so-called green waste.
	One example that I have been told about involves a company called Vital Earth GB Ltd, which, in August this year, was fined £75,000, with costs of £13,535, at Derby magistrates court for offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The compost delivered by the company to a farmer was found to be contaminated with mixed waste, such as plastics, paper and metals, including kitchen knives, bottle tops and cigarette lighters—not at all environmentally friendly, and not friendly to those engaged in metal detecting, either. The compost quality protocol states that if quality compost is mixed with other waste materials, the resulting mix will be considered to be waste, and will therefore be subject to waste regulatory controls. Spreading it across England’s green and pleasant land is not what should happen to it. After the court hearing in Derby, an Environment Agency official said:
	“This is a serious environmental crime. By depositing controlled waste Vital Earth have fallen significantly short of their environmental duties. We will not hesitate to prosecute in such cases.”
	Perhaps the Minister could state how many prosecutions there have been under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 against those who have contaminated fields with compost that contains contaminated materials. This serious crime of pollution, which affects fields growing crops for human and animal consumption, and watercourses into which the pollution leaks, is a matter that needs to be addressed with the utmost urgency.
	Mr Elton told me that a colleague contacted him to say that
	“a farm near Colchester is covered in the stuff and is virtually undetectable. How long will it be before the whole of the Colchester area is affected?”
	This afternoon he e-mailed me to wish me luck with the debate, and added:
	“Although it was my metal detecting interests that brought me to this problem originally, having seen the dreadful state of some of the treated fields I believe everyone would want to stop this non-biodegradable rubbish turning our countryside into one big landfill site.”
	I have been provided with other eye-witness accounts that include references to finding, in “green waste” on fields, medical waste, such as bandages. Another metal detector enthusiast observed that
	“many local historical sites are becoming saturated in aluminium and making it extremely difficult to recover metallic artefacts
	such as coins and brooches and that side of things whilst not as important as the food we eat or environment we live in...will affect our national heritage and academic learning from the past.”
	Mr Alan Charlish, from the west midlands, reports that
	“Despite the known problems of contaminated compost we in the UK are allowing the stuff to be spread across our fields without, it seems, any form of control. It is not only the obvious contamination that we as metal detectorists see all the time, such as old batteries, various metals, plastics, etc, it is also the unseen chemicals that are going in.”
	He added:
	“Left much longer the problems will become irreversible. The fact is that despite the claims that screening takes place there are so many contaminants that are entering the food chain via local authority recycling schemes.”
	As if those problems were not enough, I have been advised that we must now add ash dieback to the unwelcome ingredients in green waste, because leaves from infected trees are apparently finding their way on to farmers’ fields. I understand that last week, a soil conference conducted by the all-party group on agro-ecology was held at the House of Commons. Various speakers discussed the need for good soil and protection of the environment.
	In addition to drawing the Minister’s attention to that meeting, I wish to advise him of the magazine “Digging Deep” which is published by the National Council for Metal Detecting. In issue 9 Mr Wells sets out the concerns of his members about the problem that is the subject of my debate.
	I sense that what I have told the House this evening is only a snapshot of a major national scandal. The UK is the fourth largest producer of cereal and oilseeds in Europe, with cereals grown on more than 70,000 farms. There are more than 42,000 beef and dairy farms in England and Wales.
	In his article Mr Wells states:
	“Green waste is biodegradable waste that can be composed of garden or park waste, such as grass or flower cuttings and hedge trimmings, as well as domestic and commercial food waste. The differentiation green identifies it as high in nitrogen, as opposed to brown waste which is primarily carbonaceous.
	This definition identifies those elements that when composted singly or together form nitrogen rich material that when added to existing soil serves to enrich and aid development of plants and crops.”
	Thus, in theory, the spreading of green waste on farmland is sensible. Sadly, the reality is different. As Mr Wells so rightly observes:
	“The so-called green waste now being spread upon fields cannot be classed as green waste. A high percentage of the content is not compostable and needs to be controlled in exactly the same way as refuse going to landfill or incineration plants.”
	In his article he explains how things go wrong in the collection of garden waste, its onward transfer to a contractor, and the manner in which it is then processed and finally spread on fields. Frequently, at each stage, there are failures, the consequences of which are catastrophic.
	Elsewhere Mr Wells writes:
	“Farmers, in the belief that they are doing the right thing for the community, are being conned, and have their land contaminated with plastic, aluminium, glass and all kinds of other products, containing chemicals and substances which not only destroys the appearance of the countryside but also puts at risk the health of wildlife, our waterways and our human beings.
	Thousands of tonnes of this toxic rubbish, containing syringes, bottles, gloves, toys, glass—some of which will not decay for hundreds of years—are being tipped on the fields each year.”
	I conclude with a rallying cry from the president of the National Council for Metal Detecting, which I am confident will be echoed by every environmental campaigner in the country:
	“The dumping of green waste on farm land is not only ruining our hobby, it is also contaminating the land for decades to come. If this continues, metal detecting in this country will become a thing of the past. The dumping of this material is nothing short of legalised fly-tipping—and has to be stopped.”
	I invite the Minister to promise the necessary action to do just this.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) for raising this worthwhile subject. He shows why there is a need to achieve a balance between encouraging the recycling of waste of all types and securing protection for people, animals and the natural environment.
	No one should challenge the idea that it is right to encourage the treatment of green waste to produce valuable compost or soil conditioner. We strongly support measures that encourage the recycling of green waste. Over the past 10 years we have invested about £7 million in helping to develop new markets for quality compost. The composting sector in the UK has grown tenfold in the past five years as European and national legislation has encouraged local authorities to collect biodegradable garden and kitchen waste for processing into useful products, rather than consigning it to landfill. Let us not forget that organic waste sent to landfill produces methane, which has strong climate change effects. Composting is now a key component of many local authorities’ waste strategies, as my hon. Friend pointed out, as they work to improve the sustainable management of their waste.
	The demand for composted products has continued to increase. The industry turned over an estimated £226 million in 2008-09, 36% above the figure for 2007-08. Agriculture is the most important single market for compost, accepting 1.8 million tonnes of a total production of 2.8 million tonnes in 2010. Green compost, when produced to the right quality standard and used in the right way, benefits agriculture, particularly on arable—cropped—soils. It replaces fertilisers or the use of peat and other material, thus conserving natural resources.
	However, we must ensure that compost is produced to the right quality standard. That starts by ensuring that we keep green waste separate from other waste and avoid the introduction of contaminants, be they physical ones, such as pieces of metal, or less obvious ones, such as oil, rubber and residues found in street sweepings from the public highway. We need to ensure that the composting process is carried out in an environmentally sound manner and does not result in the production of polluting leachate that escapes into water courses or odours that cause a nuisance for those living nearby. The Environmental Agency has an important role in regulating composting and other waste recovery operations.
	As has been graphically described, we do not want contaminated waste spread on land. We have in place quality protocols that are supported by publicly available standards—PAS 100 for compost and PAS 110 for the digestate for anaerobic digestion. Those specifications allow only source-segregated biodegradable inputs, including biodegradable garden and kitchen wastes collected from households. The PAS 100 specifications include stringent limits on physical contaminants, such as metal, plastic and glass, that can be present in the finished composts. Those limits were revised down from a total of 0.5% of dry weight to 0.25% in 2011. They are now the toughest in Europe. If those standards are met, the output is considered to be completely recycled and is no longer subject to waste management controls. Producing waste to those standards helps producers to guarantee compost that is safe to be marketed or spread on agricultural land as a quality product and helps to improve confidence in composted materials among end users.

Bob Russell: I must express disappointment at the Minister’s response so far. He is describing the theory, but the reality is what metal detecting enthusiasts from across England and their hobby group are telling me. What he describes is simply not happening out there in the field.

Richard Benyon: I think that the point I was coming to might answer my hon. Friend’s concerns. I will say now what I was going to say later: the Government are in absolutely no way complacent about this. We might have the most stringent standards in Europe, but we want to see that we are enforcing them. Having the most stringent standards is just a factor on a piece of paper; we are concerned with outcomes. I want to assure him that we will follow up any cases where we believe there has been a failure to comply with standards, and I will move on to explain how the principle that the polluter should pay will continue to be a key component of what we do.
	Of course, not all compost needs to be produced to such a standard. Lower grade compost and compost-like outputs can be legitimately used on land, for example as mulch. In those cases, the compost remains a waste and its use on land is subject to environmental permitting or registered exemption controls in the same way as the composting process itself. That is monitored and closely enforced by the Environment Agency. We are aware of cases of sham recovery where, under the guise of composting, some operators have seemingly been more interested in disposing of unwanted materials than producing a worthwhile product. Where such cases are identified, the Environment Agency will investigate and consider enforcement action in accordance, importantly for my hon. Friend, with its enforcement and sanctions guidelines.
	The controls on compost spread to land are in place, but we are keen to guard more generally against adverse impacts resulting from the spreading of a wider range of waste and non-waste materials on land. For this reason, officials in the Department and in the Environment Agency have set up a joint project to look at the impacts of other materials spread on land and whether we have the right controls in place. Nobody has total possession of all wisdom in this regard, and we are happy to take up any cases that we hear about from hon. Members,
	local authorities, or members of the public and organisations such as the one that my hon. Friend mentioned. In doing so, we will need to be absolutely clear about the rationale for any further intervention and avoid unnecessary or disproportionate regulation. We believe that there are sanctions in place that can deal with every one of the cases that he raises. If that is not happening, we as Ministers want to know why, and we look to him and others to provide cases that we can take up with the Environment Agency, which we will do with vigour.

Tessa Munt: Will the Minister consider the fact that it is possible to look at the outcome as opposed to the process and perhaps offer some facility for the Environment Agency to recognise the integrity of agricultural and food-producing land and to offer some protection for that land? We already protect water voles and all sorts of other things in a number of different ways. If we looked to the protection of the land, any offence on it could be worked against by the Environment Agency rather than trying to classify every assault on the land.

Richard Benyon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What Government have to do is to create standards, and we do that in accordance, in the main, with European designations on such matters. However, that is a very prosaic and rather unambitious reason to do it. We also do it because we want to do so. We want to see a healthy environment. We want our food grown in a healthy way, and we want to be mindful of the health of the consumer and, of course, the impact on the environment. We are very concerned with outcomes, so we are genuinely worried when we hear such issues raised. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, we are in no way complacent. We take our responsibilities very seriously. We are absolutely desirous of having good outcomes from all the measures that are in place. Many people say that far too many regulations are imposed on our food-producing industry and that we need to try to rationalise them, but we do not do that at the expense of the health of our environment or the consumer.
	We have covered a lot of ground in the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt). I understand the attraction of metal detecting as a hobby, because a lot of people in my constituency do it. It is not only a good way of getting out into the countryside and doing a worthwhile activity; it is part of our agenda of more people having access to the countryside. It is also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester points out, a fantastic way of collecting and identifying some extraordinary artefacts. We have all heard some of the wonderful stories that have happened in recent years, especially in and around the ancient Roman city of Camulodunum, now of course Colchester. I appreciate the frustration of the members of the National Council for Metal Detecting and note its recent petition on the subject. I particularly note the concern of those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I agree that we cannot accept the inappropriate spreading of what is alleged to be green waste, or the wilful damage to our environment.
	The Government have a fundamental duty to continue to support and encourage the recycling and recovery of
	waste so as to conserve natural resources. We also have a responsibility towards the established principle in modern society that the polluter pays. That is an important sanction against the kind of pollution that my hon. Friend has described, and I reaffirm that if he can bring us evidence of this kind of thing happening, perhaps from his contacts in the National Council for Metal Detecting, I can assure him that there will be no lack of will among Ministers or those in the Environment Agency to take up those cases.
	I hope that I have managed to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and the House that there are good regulatory systems in place, and sanctions that should be working. There are also quality protocols which, if complied with, can add immensely to helping our environment. Where they are not being complied with, the perpetrators can be punished.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.